•5 

^ 

1c 
3 

* 

(0 

««^. 

IE 

~5              ""9 

Ql 

♦S 

*s>     fc 

o 

to 

£ 

^      8 

c 

w           O 

bO 

C\ 

»25            Em 

< 

Z3 

it. 

m 

E 

W                M 

C3 

« 

>S         H 

to 

"^ 

2 

S3 

O 

JQ 

5i 

% 

0) 

c 

s 

g 

0) 
CO 

2 

6 

t*> 

CL 

1 

£ 

^~b 

< 

'££/ 

0 

THE    CHURCH. 


By  ENOCH:/POND,    D.  D. 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY,  BANGOR. 


BOSTON : 
PUBLISHED  BY  WHIPPLE  &  DAMRELL, 

No.  9  Cornhill. 
NEW  YORK:— SCOFIELD  &  VOORHIES, 

No.  118  Nassau  Street. 


1837. 


Entered  according  to   Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1837,  by 
WHIPPLE  AND  DAMRELL, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Massachusetts. 


WILLIAM  S.  DAMRELL,  PRINTER, 

No.  9  Cornhill, Boston. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  author  of  the  following  pages  is, 
not  only  by  profession,  but  in  principle^ 
a  Congregationalist.  He  believes  that 
the  popular  form  of  church  government, 
adopted  (with  some  modifications)  by 
the  Congregational  and  Baptist  church- 
es of  the  United  States  and  of  Eng- 
land, is  more  nearly  in  accordance  with 
apostolical  usage,  and  better  adapted  to 
secure  the  great  ends  of  church  organ- 
ization, than  any  other  with  which  he 
is  acquainted.  Of  course,  he  feels  an 
interest  in  the  explanation  and  vindica- 
tion of  this  general  form. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


In  common  with  many  of  his  breth- 
ren, with  whom  he  has  had  opportunity 
of  correspondence,  the  writer  has  felt 
that  a  small  treatise  on  the  general  sub- 
ject of  the  Church,  designed  not  exclu- 
sively for  the  learned,  but  rather  for 
the  instruction  of  the  common  mind, 
was  much  needed  at  the  present  time. 
This  need  it  has  been  his  object  in  some 
measure  to  supply.  How  far  he  has 
succeeded  in  this  attempt,  the  public 
will  decide. 


-  V-"--'-' 


•V 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 
Section  I.     Signification  of  the  word  Church,  in 
the  New  Testament, 9 

Section  II.  Has  Christ  instituted  any  precise  form 
of  Church  government  ? 10 

Section  III.  Scriptural  authority  for  Congrega- 
tional Churches, ..-.., 13 

Section  IV.  The  apostolic  Churches  voluntary 
Associations.  In  what  respects  Churches  differ 
from  other  voluntary  Associations, 18 

Section  V.  The  Question  of  written  Creeds  and 
Covenants, 23 

Section  VI.  Independence  and  mutual  Fellow- 
ship of  Churches, 27 

!# 


Vi  CONTENTS. 

Page. 
Section  VII.     Powers   and  Rights  of  a  Church. 

Right  to  elect  its  own  officers,  admit  and  exclude 
members,  hold  and  control  property,  &c, 34 

Section  VIII.  Officers  of  a  Church.  Two  dis- 
tinct orders  of  standing  church  officers,  presbyters 
and  deacons.  Arguments  of  Episcopalians  exam- 
ined.    Ordination, 39 

Section  IX.     Church  Discipline, 78 

Section.  X.     Privileges  of  Church  Members, ...  .    86 

Section  XI.  Concluding  Remarks.  The  Church 
an  honorable  and  important  institution.  Duty  of 
all  persons  under  the  Gospel  to  become  connected 
with  it, 89 


APPENDIX. 

Note  A.    Deaconesses, 103 

Note  B.  Ancient  Creeds.  The  Apostle's  Creed. 
Creed  of  Irenaeus.  Creed  of  Origen.  Creed  of 
Tertullian.  Creed  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 
Creed  of  Lucian  the  martyr.  Creed  of  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem.  Creed  of  the  Church  at  Alexandria. 
Creed  of  the  Church  at  Antioch, 105 


CONTENTS.  Vll 

Page. 
Note  C.     Should  the  articles  of  a  Church  contain 

any  thing  more  than  what  is  absolutely  essential  to 

piety  ? 113 

Note  D.  Different  modes  of  communion  or  fellow- 
ship among  the  ancient  churches, 117 

Note  E.  Date  of  Paul's  first  Epistle  to  Timothy. 
Written  before  his  last  interview  with  the  Ephesian 
elders, 119 

Note  F.  The  question  of  an  apostolic  succession 
of  bishops  considered, 121 

Note  G.  The  Epistles  of  Ignatius  probably  spu- 
rious,  126 


THE    CHURCH. 


SECTION   I. 

Signification  of  the  word  Church,  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  Greek  word  commonly  rendered 
church,  in  the  New  Testament,  literally  sig- 
nifies a  congregation,  an  assembly.  Thus  the 
congregation  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness  is 
called  a  church,  Acts  7:  38;  and  to  the 
riotous  assembly  at  Ephesu3  the  same  orig- 
inal word  is  applied,  Acts  19:  32,  39.  With 
reference  to  Christians,  we  find  the  term  used 
in  the  three  following  senses: 

1.  To  denote  the  general  invisible  church, 
comprising  the  whole  body  of  true  believers, 
whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven.  Heb.  12:  23. 
Col.  1:  18,  24. 


10  THE      CHURCH. 

2.  To  denote  particular  visible  churches,  or 
those  bodies  of  professed  believers,  which  were 
accustomed  to  assemble  for  divine  worship 
and  other  religious  purposes  in  one  place;  as 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  the  church  at  Anti- 
och,  the  churches  of  Galatia,  and  of  Macedo- 
nia. This  is  the  more  literal,  and  much  the 
more  common  use  of  the  word  in  the  New 
Testament. 

3.  The  word  is  also  used,  though  not  fre- 
quently, to  denote  the  general  visible  church, 
considered  as  embodying  all  the  particular 
visible  churches.    Rom.  16:23.   1  Cor.  12:28. 


SECTION     II. 

Has  Christ  instituted  any  precise  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment ? 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether  there 
is  any  precise  model  of  church  organization 
and  government  laid  down  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  which  Christians  universally  are 
under  obligations  to  conform.  By  some  it  has 
been  contended,  that  this  is  the  case; — that 
nothing  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  church; 
— that  we  are  bound  to  copy,  in  every  partic- 


THE      CHURCH.  11 

ular,  after  the  divine  pattern  which  has  been 
given  us.  By  others  it  is  asserted,  that  we 
have  no  divine  pattern  which  is  at  all  obliga- 
tory;-— that  Christians  are  left  to  their  own 
judgment  in  this  matter; — that  it  is  not  only 
their  right,  but  their  duty,  to  modify  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church  according  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  age  and  country  in  which 
they  live. 

The  truth,  I  think,  lies  between  these  two 
extremes.  The  Scriptures  do  furnish  us  with 
at  least  some  general  outlines  of  church  organ- 
ization and  government,  from  which  no  body 
of  Christians  is  at  liberty  to  depart.  They 
describe,  for  example,  the  object  of  church 
organization,  and  the  character  of  church 
members;  and  no  Christians  would  be  at 
liberty  to  form  a  society  for  a  merely  moral 
or  secular  object,  and  without  any  regard  to 
the  character  of  its  members,  and  to  call  it  a 
church  of  Christ.  Nor  has  any  body  of 
Christians,  calling  themselves  a  church,  a 
right  to  dispense  with  religious  worship  and 
divine  ordinances,  or  with  the  ministry  and 
officers  of  a  church.  Nor,  in  place  of  a  stated 
pastor,  would  the  members  of  a  church  have 
a  right  to  assume  the  pastoral  office  in  rotation, 


U 


12  THE      CHURCH. 

one  after  another,  for  a  limited  time.  Nor,  in 
place  of  deacons,  would  they  have  a  right  to 
substitute  a  church  committee,  chosen  annu- 
ally, or  for  a  shorter  period.  The  practice  of 
nearly  all  Christians  shows,  that  they  con- 
ceive some  things  in  regard  to  church  order  to 
be  settled  in  the  New  Testament;  and  so 
settled,  that  they  are  not  at  liberty  to  depart 
from  them. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  idle  to  pre- 
tend, that  every  thing  relating  to  church  af- 
fairs, is  authoritatively  settled  in  the  New 
Testament,  so  that  nothing  is  left  to  the 
judgment  of  Christians.  For  example,  the 
Scriptures  prescribe  that  ministers  of  the 
gospel  are  to  be  supported;  but  they  do  not 
fix  the  precise  amount  of  their  salaries,  or 
define  the  mode  in  which  their  salaries  are 
to  be  raised.  The  Scriptures  enjoin  the  duty 
of  public  worship;  but  they  do  not  direct 
Christians  where  they  shall  meet,  or  at  what 
hour  of  the  day,  or  in  what  shape  or  form 
they  shall  build  their  temples.  We  shall 
search  in  vain  for  any  inspired  precept,  re-^ 
quiring  or  forbidding  church  organs,  or  church 
bells,  or  defining  particularly  the  length,  or 
the  precise  order,  of  the  services  of  the  sane- 


THE      CHURCH,  13 

tuary.  We  have  a  general  injunction,  that 
"all  things  be  done  decently  and  in  order;" 
but  in  what  particular  order  many  things  are 
to  be  done,  is  wisely  left  to  the  judgment  of 
Christians. 

The  truth  in  regard  to  the  question  before 
us  seems,  therefore,  to  be  this:  there  are  some 
general  outlines  of  church  organization  and 
government  marked  out  for  us  by  the  pen  of 
inspiration;  and  these,  so  far  as  they  can  be 
discovered,  are  to  be  strictly  regarded.  But 
within  the  range  of  these,  God  has  wisely  left 
many  things  to  be  judged  of  by  the  light  of 
reason,  and  to  be  modified  according  to  cir- 
cumstances in  providence. 


SECTION     III. 

Scriptural  authority  for  Congregational  Churches. 

It  is  evident  from  the  sacred  writings,  that 
Christ  intended  to  embody  his  professed  fol- 
lowers on  earth,  not  in  one  corporate,  univer- 
sal church,  but  in  particular,  Congregational 
churches.*     He    prepared   the  materials    for 

*  I  use  the  word  Congregational  here  in  a  general,  and 
hot  in  a  technical  or  sectarian  sense. 


14  THE      CHURCH. 

such  a  church  during  his  public  ministry, 
which  church  was  fully  organized  at  Jerusa- 
lem soon  after  his  ascension.  Acts  1 :  c26, 
and  6:  5,  6. 

It  was  a  principal  labor  of  the  apostles  to 
form  such  churches  in  the  cities  and  villages 
where  they  preached,  and  where  disciples 
were  multiplied.  Nearly  thirty  different 
churches  are  spoken  of  specifically  in  the  New 
Testament,  besides  a  much  greater  number 
which  are  referred  to  in  more  general  terms. 

That  these  churches  were  not  of  a  national 
or  provincial  character  appears  from  the  fact, 
that  when  the  churches  of  a  particular  country 
or  province  are  mentioned,  they  are  always 
spoken  of  in  the  plural  number.  Thus  we 
read  of,  not  the  church,  but  the  churches  of 
Judea,  of  Syria,  of  Galatia,  of  Asia,  and  of 
Macedonia.  See  Acts  9:31.  15:  41.  1  Cor. 
16:  1,  19.  2  Cor.  8:  1.  And  when  there  were 
converts  in  a  place  adjoining  a  large  city,  it 
was  not  the  custom  of  the  apostles  to  gather 
them  into  the  church  of  the  city,  but  to  form 
them  into  a  separate  church.  Thus  at  Cen- 
chrea,  the  port  of  Corinth,  there  was  a  church, 
distinct  from  the  larger  church  in  the  city. 
See  Rom.  16:  1. 


THE      CHURCH.  15 

These  particular  churches  were  distinct 
organizations,  each  having  its  own  members 
and  officers.  To  be  a  member  of  one  church 
did  not  constitute  membership  in  another;  nor 
did  the  holding  of  office  in  one  church  consti- 
tute the  person  holding  it  an  officer  of  any- 
other  church.  Thus,  the  teachers  spoken  of 
in  the  church  at  Antioch  were  not  teachers  or 
members  of  the  church  at  Ephesus;  nor  were 
the  elders  of  the  church  at  Ephesus  officers 
of  the  church  at  Rome.  Acts  13:  1.  20:  17. 
Epaphroditus  was  a  member  and  officer  of  the 
church  at  Philippi;  and  Phebe  was  servant  (or 
deaconess)  of  the  church  at  Cenchrea.*  Phil. 
2:  25.     Rom.  16:  1. 

The  churches  under  the  apostles  were  com- 
posed, each  of  them,  of  Christians,  who  were 
expected  to  come  together  in  one  place  for 
public  worship,  and  for  celebrating  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel.  Perhaps  all  of  them  did 
not  assemble  uniformly  in  one  place.  The 
distresses  of  the  times,  and  their  want  of  suit- 
able accommodations,  might  have  prevented 
this.  But  that,  on  all  occasions  of  common 
interest   and  concernment,  the  members  of  a 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  A. 


16  THE      CHURCH. 

church,  and  even  of  the  largest  churches, 
were  accustomed  to  come  together,  is  certain. 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  church  at  Jeru- 
salem were  assembled  "with  one  accord,  in 
one  place."  And  many  years  after,  when 
messengers  from  the  church  at  Antioch  went 
up  to  Jerusalem,  with  the  question  respecting 
circumcision,  the  apostles,  and  elders,  and  the 
whole  church  came  together  to  deliberate  and 
advise  in  relation  to  this  matter.  Acts.  2:1. 
15:  22.  When  Paul  and  Barnabas  returned 
from  their  first  mission  to  the  heathen,  "they 
gathered  the  church  at  Antioch  together,  and 
rehearsed  all  that  God  had  done  with  them, 
and  how  he  had  opened  the  door  of  faith  unto 
the  Gentiles."  Acts  14:  27.  "Upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,"  the  church  at  Troas 
"came  together  to  break  bread."  Acts  20:  7. 
It  is  repeatedly  said  of  the  church  at  Cor- 
inth, that  they  were  accustomed  to  "come 
together  into  one  place,"  to  attend  upon  divine 
worship,  and  to  administer  the  discipline  of 
the  church.  See  1  Cor.  5:  4.  11:  18.  14: 
23.*     Indeed,   if  the    administration  of  disci- 

*  "If  therefore  the  ivhole  church  be  come  together  into 
one  place,"  &c. 


THE      CHURCH.  17 

pline  belongs  to  the  church,  as  by  the  express 
appointment  of  Christ  it  manifestly  does  (see 
Matt.  18:  17),  then  the  church  must  of  neces- 
sity come  together,  to  transact  this  painful  but 
important  work. 

It  is  thus  indisputably  certain  from  our 
sacred  writings,  that  Christians,  under  the 
ministry  of  the  apostles,  were  collected  into 
distinct  and  separate  organizations,  called 
churches,  each  having  its  own  members  and 
officers,  and  each  consisting  of  such  as  were 
accustomed  to  assemble  in  one  place  for  relig- 
ious worship,  and  for  transacting  the  affairs 
of  the  church. 

I  will  only  add,  that  if  the  plan  of  the  apos- 
tles, in  this  respect,  had  been  followed  out  in 
the  succeeding  ages;  if,  when  Christians  in 
the  large  cities  and  their  suburbs  became  too 
numerous  to  assemble  conveniently  in  one 
place,  instead  of  attempting  to  continue  to- 
gether, they  had  amicably  separated  into  dis- 
tinct organizations;  one  of  the  stepping-stones 
to  Romanism  would  have  been  removed,  and 
a  principal  source  of  ambition  and  corruption 
would  have  been  kept  out  of  the  church.  In 
this  case,  the  sees  of  Rome,  and  Antioch,  and 
Alexandria,  and  Constantinople,  would  never 
2* 


18  THE      CHDRCH. 

have  been  converted  into  princely  thrones, 
and  aspirants  would  not  have  waded  into  them 
through  scenes  of  turmoil  and  blood. 


•  SECTION     IV. 

The  apostolic  Churches  voluntary  associations. 

The  churches,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
were  all  of  them  voluntary  associations.  The 
apostles  had  no  compulsory  power  to  bring 
men  into  the  churches,  nor  did  they  desire 
any.  All  who  joined  themselves  to  any  of  the 
churches  did  it  freely,  and  of  their  own  accord. 
The  three  thousand,  who  were  baptized  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  acted  freely.  So  did 
the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  and  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
and  the  Philippian  jailer,  and  the  family  of 
Cornelius,  and  every  other  individual  who,  at 
that  period,  was  added  to  a  Christian  church. 
There  was  no  compulsion,  or  any  thing  ap- 
proaching to  it,  in  any  case.  The  churches 
then  were,  and  ever  should  have  been,  strictly 
voluntary  associations. 

But  although  every  church  of  Christ  is,  and  of 
right  ought  to  be,  a  voluntary  association,  still, 
every  voluntary  association  is  not   a  church. 


THE      CHURCH.  19 

It  is  necessary  to  inquire,  therefore,  what 
there  was  peculiar  in  the  associations  of  which 
we  speak,  which  went  to  constitute  them 
churches  of  Christ.     And, 

1.  These  associations  consisted  of  persons 
of  a  particular  character.  All  who  joined 
themselves  unto  the  churches  of  the  apostles 
were  required  to  profess  faith  in  Christ,  and 
to  give  credible  evidence  of  piety.  It  was 
those  "who  were  pricked  in  the  heart,"  and 
repented,  and  "gladly  received  the  word," 
who  were  admitted  to  the  church  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  It  was  not  till  the  Samaritans 
"  believed  Philip,  preaching  the  things  con- 
cerning the  kingdom  of  Christ,"  that  they 
were  received  by  him  to  baptism  and  the 
church.  The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  the  family 
of  Cornelius,  and  satisfied  Peter  as  to  their 
piety,  before  he  would  admit  them  to  the 
church,  and  administer  to  them  the  ordinances 
of  the  gospel.  Ananias  objected  to  baptizing 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  till  a  voice  from  heaven  as- 
sured him  of  the  piety  of  this  recent  perse- 
cutor. "He  is  a  chosen  vessel  unto  me,  to 
bear  my  name  before  the  Gentiles,  and  kings, 
and  the  children  of  Israel."     Acts  9:  15. 

We  here  see  what  were  the  terms  of  admis- 


20  THE      CHURCH. 

sion  to  the  apostolic  churches,  and  what  ought 
to  be  the  terms  of  admission  to  all  the  visible 
churches  of  Christ.  A  visible  church  is  that 
which  is  visibly,  or  which  appears  to  be,  a 
branch  of  the  real  church.  Consequently  a 
member  of  the  visible  church  should  be  one 
who  is  visibly,  or  who  appears  to  be,  a  real  dis- 
ciple and  follower  of  the  Saviour.  To  say  that 
a  person  can  be  a  consistent  member  of  the  vis- 
ible church,  and  not  appear  to  be  a  member  of 
the  real  church,  is  a  contradiction  in  terms. 

Besides;  none  but  a  truly  sanctified  person 
can  consistently  perform  those  sacramental  acts, 
which  are  required  of  all  the  members  of  a 
church.  Do  not  those  who  go  to  the  table  of 
Christ,  and  feed  upon  the  symbol  of  his  broken 
body,  herein  plainly  manifest  that  they  are  pre- 
pared to  feed  upon  him  by  faith  ?  Do  not  those 
who  bring  the  consecrated  cup  to  their  lips, 
and  partake  the  emblem  of  a  Saviour's  blood, 
herein  significantly  say,  that  their  trust  is  in 
this  precious  blood?  Do  not  those  who  sit  at 
the  table  of  Christ,  in  visible  communion  with 
his  people,  manifest,  in  this  transaction,  that 
they  have,  or  that  they  trust  they  have,  holy, 
spiritual  communion  with  the  saints?  In  other 
words,  is  not  the  whole  transaction  of  com- 


THE      CHURCH.  21 

municating,  a  symbolical  profession  of  faith  and 
holiness,  such  as  no  one  can  consistently  make, 
unless  he  is  a  holy  person  ?  To  me,  I  must  ac- 
knowledge, this  matter  is  altogether  too  plain 
to  be  made  the  subject  of  dispute  or  doubt. 
It  ought  never  to  have  been  called  in  question 
in  the  church  of  Christ.  No  person  can  come 
to  the  Lord's  table  without  making  a  virtual 
profession  of  piety;  and  no  person  should  be 
encouraged  or  permitted  to  join  himself  to  a 
church  of  Christ,  and  enter  into  obligations 
to  come  to  his  table,  without  furnishing  satis- 
factory evidence,  that  he  is  prepared  to  come 
in  a  holy,  acceptable  manner. 

2.  Those  voluntary  associations,  formed  by 
the  apostles,  and  by  them  denominated  church- 
es, not  only  consisted,  as  we  have  seen,  of 
persons  of  a  particular  character,  but  they  were 
formed  on  ^peculiar  basis,  viz.,  that  of  the  holy 
Scriptures.  In  establishing  other  voluntary 
associations,  the  members  are  guided  by  the 
particular  object  which  they  have  in  view ;  and 
they  so  form  and  adjust  their  constitution  and 
laws  as  will  best  tend  to  promote  this  object. 
But  in  establishing  churches,  all  who  would 
follow  in  the  steps  of  the  apostles,  must  build 
entirely   on  the    platform  of  the    Scriptures. 


22  THE      CHURCH. 

Their  constitution  and  by-laws  must  conform 
to  the  Scriptures.  All  who  become  connect- 
ed with  a  church  must  be  required  to  take  the 
Scriptures  as  their  rule.  They  must  profess 
to  believe  whatever  the  Scriptures  plainly 
teach,  and  promise  to  obey,  so  far  as  they  are 
able,  all  that  the  Scriptures  enjoin.  Here 
then,  is  a  very  important  particular  in  which 
the  churches  of  Christ  differ  from  all  other 
voluntary  associations. 

3.  The  object  for  which  churches  are  formed 
and  sustained  is  altogether  of  a  peculiar  char- 
acter. The  object  for  which  professed  believ- 
ers become  associated  in  a  church  is  to  pro- 
mote, not  any  merely  moral  or  secular  end, 
but  altogether  a  spiritual  end.  Their  object 
is,  to  maintain  the  worship  and  ordinances  of 
the  gospel;  to  promote,  by  all  proper  methods, 
the  edification  one  of  another;  and  to  labor, 
more  efficiently  than  would  otherwise  be  pos- 
sible, for  the  advancement  of  Christ's  kingdom 
and  the  salvation  of  souls.  Such  is  in  brief, 
the  object  of  all  church  organization.  A  wor- 
thy and  important  object  truly!*     An  object 

*  It  is  evident  from  the  object  of  church  organization, 
that  churches  should  be  particular  or  congregational;  in 
other  words,  that  each  should  consist  of  those  only  who 
can  statedly  and  conveniently  come  together  in  one  place. 


THE      CHURCH.  23 

in  reference  to  which  the  church  is  gloriously 
distinguished  from  all  other  associations  exist- 
ing among  men. 

The  remarks  in  this  section  may  be  summed 
up  in  a  definition,  from  which  it  will  be  seen, 
at  a  glance,  in  what  respects  churches  differ 
from  other  voluntary  societies.  Jl  church  is 
an  organized  body  of  professed  believers  in 
Christ;  formed  on  the  basis  of  the  holy  Scrip- 
tures; and  having  for  its  object  the  maintenance 
of  the  loorship  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  the 
edification  of  its  members,  and  their  more  efficient 
action  in  promoting  the  cause  and  kingdom  of 
Christ. 


SECTION    V. 

The  question  of  written  Creeds  and  Covenants. 

That  those  who  associate  together  in  a 
church  must  have  some  compact  or  covenant, 
written  or  unwritten,  expressed  or  implied,  is 
obvious.  Otherwise,  there  would  be  no  mutu- 
al agreement  or  understanding  between  them. 
They  would  have  no  bond  of  union,  and  would 
not  know  at  all  what  duties  to  expect,  or  what 
were  expected,  one  of  another.     And  if  there 


mi 
In 


24  THE      CHURCH. 

must  be  a  compact  or  covenant,  it  certainly 
would  seem  desirable  that  this  should  be  a 
written  covenant;  one  that  could  not  well  be 
forgotten,  and  to  which  all  the  members  might 
have  liberty  of  appeal. 

From  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  certain, 
that  the  churches,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
must  have  had,   each  of  them,   its  covenant. 

other  words,  there  must  have  been  a  mu- 
tual understanding,  an  agreement,  between 
the  members,  as  to  what  course  of  life  they 
were  to  pursue,  and  the  duties  they  were  to 
perform  one  towards  another.  We  are  told 
that  they  gave  themselves  up  first  unto  the 
Lord,  and  to  one  another  by  the  will  of  God. 
2  Cor.  8:  5.  Whether  the  covenants  of  the 
churches  were  committed  to  writing,  at  so 
early  a  period,  we  have  no  certain  means  of 
information. 

In  the  age  immediately  succeeding  that  of 
the  apostles,  we  find  frequent  mention  made 
of  the  covenants  of  the  churches.  Tertullian, 
describing  a  church,  says,  "We  are  a  body 
united  for  the  conscientious  performance  of 
the  duties  of  religion,  by  an  agreement  in  dis- 
cipline, and  a  covenant  of  hope."  Justin  Mar- 
tyr represents  those  who  were  admitted  into 


THE      CHURCH.  »5 

church  fellowship,  as  agreeing  in  a  resolution 
to  conform  in  all  things  to  the  word  of  God." 
Pliny,  in  his  letter  to  Trajan,  says,  that  the 
Christians  whom  he  had  examined,  confessed 
nothing  worse  than  this,  that  "  they  had  enter- 
ed into  a  covenant  to  commit  no  theft,  robbery, 
or  adultery,  to  break  no  promise,  to  violate  no 
engagement,  and  to  do  no  dishonest  thing." 

The  same  course  of  remark  which  has  been 
pursued  in  relation  to  church  covenants,  may 
be  extended  also  to  creeds.  It  is  certainly 
desirable,  that  those  who  are  to  unite  habitu- 
ally in  the  most  solemn  acts  of  worship,  should 
be  agreed  in  the  essential  articles  of  their 
faith;  and  as  every  Christian  who  believes 
any  thing,  has  a  creed,  so  every  society  of 
Christians,  which  holds  any  articles  of  faith 
in  common,  has  a  common  creed.  The  only 
question  is  (if  this  can  be  a  question),  whether 
the  creed  shall  be  matter  of  public  record,  to 
which  all  concerned  may  have  free  access,  and 
liberty  of  appeal,  or  whether  it  shall  be  left 
to  uncertain  tradition  and  forgetfulness. 

That  the  churches,  in  the  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, had  each  of  them  its  creed,  or  common 
articles  of  belief,  relating  to  the  birth  and  life, 
the  teachings  and  actions,  the  death,  resur- 
3 


26  THE      CHURCH. 

rection,  and  ascension  of  Jesus — the  duties 
which  Christians  owed  to  him,  and  the  hopes 
which  they  entertained  through  him,  is  certain. 
Whether  these  creeds  were  formally  written 
out  by  any  of  the  apostles,  cannot  now  be  as- 
certained. We  know  that  there  were  written 
creeds  in  the  churches,  at  a  very  early  period. 
The  apostle's  creed  (so  called)  is  an  ancient 
document;  though  not  written  certainly — at 
least  not  all  of  it — by  any  of  the  apostles.* 

A  written  creed  should  never  be  substituted 
in  place  of  Scripture,  but  should  be  regarded 
as  a  concise  expression  of  what  is  deemed  to  be 
the  sense  of  Scripture.  To  the  church  adopting 
it,  it  is  not  itself  the  standard  of  faith,  but  a 
transcript,  an  epitome  of  that  infallible  stand- 
ard which  God  has  given  us  in  his  word. 

No  church  has  a  right  to  impose  its  creed 
upon  others,  but  merely  to  propose  it  for  con- 
sideration, leaving  those  to  whom  is  is  pro- 
posed at  full  liberty,  either  to  adopt  it,  and 
walk  with  that  particular  church,  or  to  reject 
it,  and  enter  into  some  other  connexion. 

With  the  explanation  above  given,  I  see  no 
valid  objection  to  written  creeds  and  cove- 
nants, while  the  benefits  of  them  are  so  nu- 

t  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 


THE      CHURCH.  2T 

merous  and  obvious,  as  to  entitle  them  to  an 
universal  adoption.* 


SECTION   VI. 

Independence  and  mutual  Fellowship  of  Churches. 

While  the  churches  planted  by  the  apostles 
maintained  a  fraternal  intercourse  one  with 
another,  in  all  holy  fellowship  and  communion, 
they  manifestly  were  independent  one  of 
another,  so  far  as  jurisdiction  and  authority 
were  concerned.  The  apostles,  indeed,  as  the 
divinely  commissioned  and  inspired  founders 
of  churches,  had  a  degree  of  authority  over 
them,  which  was  peculiar  to  themselves;  but 
among  the  churches,  we  find  no  one  of  them, 
and  no  confederated  body  of  them,  presuming 
to  exercise  authority  over  the  others.  Not 
even  the  mother  church  at  Jerusalem,  consid- 
ered in  its  church  capacity,  and  as  separate 
from  the  apostles,  ever  undertook  to  dictate 
to  the  other  churches,  or  to  extend  its  juris- 
diction over  them. 

The  independence  of  the  primitive  church- 

*  Appendix,  Note  C. 


28  THE      CHURCH. 

es,  in  the  sense  and  to  the  extent  here  ex- 
plained, is  not  only  sanctioned  by  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  most  explicitly  asserted  bv  learned 
and  impartial  historians,  who  have  investiga- 
ted the  subject.  Waddington,  an  Episcopa- 
lian of  the  church  of  England,  speaking  of 
the  church  in  the  first  century,  says,  "Every 
church  was  essentially  independent  of  every 
other.  The  churches,  thus  constituted  and 
regulated,  formed  a  sort  of  federative  body  of 
independent  religious  communities,  dispersed 
through  the  greater  part  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire, in  continual  communication,  and  in  con- 
stant harmony  with  each  other."  * 

Mosheim,  a  Lutheran,  who  could  have  had 
no  predilection  for  the  doctrine  of  Indepen- 
dency, thus  describes  the  state  of  things  in 
the  first  century:  "All  the  churches,  in  those 
primitive  times,  were  independent  bodies;  or 
none  of  them  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  any 
other.  For  though  the  churches  which  were 
founded  by  the  apostles  themselves  frequently 
had  the  honor  shown  them  to  be  consulted  in 
difficult  cases,  yet  they  had  no  judicial  author- 
ity, no   control,  no  power  of  giving  laws.     On 

*  Ecc.  Hist.,  p.  43. 


THE      CHURCH.  29 

the  contrary,  it  is  clear  as  the  noonday,  that  all 
Christian  churches  had  equal  rights,  and  were 
in  all  respects  on  a  footing  of  equality. "  The 
same  author,  speaking  of  the  second  century, 
says,  "During  a  great  part  of  this  century, 
all  the  churches  continued  to  be,  as  at  first, 
independent  of  each  other,  or  were  connected 
by  no  consociations  or  confederations.  Each 
church  was  a  kind  of  little  independent  repub- 
lic, governed  by  its  own  laws,  which  were 
enacted,  or  at  least  sanctioned,  by  the  peo- 
ple."* 

The  testimony  of  Neander  on  the  subject 
before  us,  is  entirely  accordant  with  that  of 
Mosheim.  He  enlarges  upon  the  free  and 
popular  form  of  government  adopted  by  the 
churches  in  the  first  century,  and  describes 
them  as  sustaining,  in  relation  to  each  other, 
"a  sisterly  system  of  equality." 

But  while  the  primitive  churches  were,  in 
the  sense  explained,  independent  of  each 
other,  they  were  bound  together  by  the  strong- 
est ties,  and  maintained  (as  hinted  above)  a 
constant  intercourse,  in  all  suitable  acts  of 
fellowship     and    communion.     They  were  to 

*  Ecc.  Hist.  (Murdock's  edition),  vol.  i,  pp.  86,  142. 

3# 


30  THE      CHURCH. 

each  other  objects  of  deep  interest,  and  of 
mutual  concern  and  prayer.  As  their  teach- 
ers journeyed  from  place  to  place,  it  is  not  to 
be  doubted  that  they  had  an  interchange  of 
pastoral  labors.  The  members,  too,  when 
absent  from  their  own  churches,  were  freely 
admitted  to  communion  in  the  assemblies  of 
their  brethren.  The  primitive  churches  sent 
Christian  salutations  and  letters  of  instruction 
and  warning  one  to  another.  They  also  sent 
messengers  one  to  another,  and  administered 
relief  to  one  another  in  distress.  They  cheer- 
fully bore  one  another's  burdens,  and  in  cases 
of  doubt  and  difficulty,  looked  to  each  other 
for  advice. 

This  fellowship  of  churches,  established  by 
the  apostles,  was  continued  under  the  ministry 
of  their  immediate  successors.  Before  the 
close  of  the  first  century,  Clement  of  Rome 
addressed  an  epistle  to  the  Corinthian  church, 
which  commences  as  follows:  "The  church 
of  God  which  is  at  Rome,  to  the  church  of 
God  which  is  at  Corinth,  elect,  sanctified  by 
the  will  of  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord."  Various  instances  occur,  in  the  age 
immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  apostles, 
in  which   one  church,  or  the  pastor  of  some 


THE      CHURCH.  31 

one  church,  addresses  letters  of  exhortation 
to  other  churches.* 

This  intimate  and  holy  fellowship  of  church- 
es is  no  more  inconsistent  with  their  indepen- 
dence, than  the  friendly  intercourse  of  neigh- 
bors is  inconsistent  with  their  being,  each 
and  all  of  them,  independent  citizens.  I  have 
no  right,  as  an  individual,  to  exercise  author- 
ity over  my  neighbor,  nor  he  over  me.  Still, 
it  is  proper  that  we  should  maintain  a  mutual 
friendly  intercourse,  and  perform  towards 
each  other  all  the  offices  of  neighborhood  and 
kindness. 

The  independence  of  churches,  in  the  sense 
here  explained,  I  hold  to  be  one  of  those  pe- 
culiar, apostolical  features  of  church  govern- 
ment, which  ought  never  to  have  been  invaded 
or  relinquished.  It  began  to  be  invaded, 
about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  by 
the  establishment  of  synods  with  dictatorial 
powers  ,'f  and  it  continued  to  be  invaded  more 

*  Appendix,  Note  D. 

t  "These  synods  or  councils,"  says  Mosheim,  "of 
which  we  find  not  the  smallest  trace  before  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,  changed  the  whole  face  of  the  church, 
and  gave  it  a  new  form ;  f^r  by  them  the  ancient  privileges 
of  the  people  were  diminished,  and  the  power  and  author- 


vi 


32  THE      CHURCH. 

and  more,  till  at  length  it  utterly  disappeared 
from  the  church.  And  when  this  was  gone, 
there  was  no  let  or  hindrance  to  the  progress 
of  usurpation,  until  all  the  churches  became 
merged  in  one  universal  church;  and  all 
power  was  concentrated  in  the  lordly  bishop 
of  Rome. 

The  independence  of  particular  churches, 
modified  by  established  forms  of  ecclesiastical 
intercourse  and  fellowship,  constitutes  the  pe- 
culiar characteristic,  and  (as  I  think)  the 
glory  of  Congregationalism.*  In  the  govern- 
ment of  many  denominations  of  Christians, 
this  independence  is  taken  away.  The  par- 
ticular churches  are  all  merged  in  a  general 
church,  and  are  subject  to  a  jurisdiction  above 

ity  of  the  bishops  greatly  augmented."  There  could 
have  been  no  danger  in  these  synods,  and  might  have  been 
much  benefit,  if  they  had  confined  themselves  to  delibera- 
tion and  counsel;  but  they  soon  "turned  their  influence 
into  dominion,  and  their  counsels  into  laws,  and  openly 
asserted  that  Christ  had  empowered  them  to  prescribe  to 
his  people  authoritative  rules  of  faith  and  manners." — 
Ecc.  Hist.,  Cent,  ii,  Part  ii,  Chap.  2. 

*  I  use  the  term  Congregationalism  here,  as  in  other 
places,  in  its  widest  sense,  including  under  it  all  those 
sects  of  Christians  who  retain  tbe  principle  of  independen- 
cy, and  whose  government  is  of  the  popular  kind. 


THE      CHURCH.  33 

and  without  themselves.  But  not  so  in  the 
Congregational  churches.  All  power  here 
originates  (under  Christ)  in  the  church,  and 
terminates  in  the  church.  The  stream  never 
rises  higher  than  the  fountain.  There  may  be 
church  conferences  or  consociations,  and 
ministerial  associations  for  mutual  encourage- 
ment, edification  and  prayer;  but  these  can 
exercise  no  jurisdiction,  control,  or  authority 
over  the  churches.  Councils  may  be  called, 
and  may  give  advice;  but  this  advice  may  be 
accepted  or  rejected.  To  be  sure,  where  the 
advice  of  a  council  is  unreasonably  rejected, 
there  may  follow  a  breach  of  fellowship  be- 
tween the  churches  giving  it,  and  the  church 
rejecting  it.  Still,  each  and  every  church  re- 
tains its  independence,  so  far  as  jurisdiction 
is  concerned,  being  amenable  only  to  its  di- 
vine Shepherd  and  Head. 

To  some,  this  system  of  government  has 
appeared  loose  and  defective;  but  I  have  no 
doubt  that  it  is,  for  substance,  the  same,  which 
was  bequeathed  to  the  churches  by  the  divine 
Saviour  and  his  apostles.  And  neither  can  I 
doubt,  that  experience  has  shown  it  to  be  bet- 
ter adapted  to  the  great  ends  and  purposes  of 
church  organization,  than  any  of  the  numer- 


34  THE      CHURCH. 

ous  forms  which  have  been  substituted  in  its 
place.  Where  shall  we  look  for  churches 
more  efficient  and  nourishing,  than  those  of 
the  first  century  and  a  half  of  the  Christian 
era?  And  where,  since  that  period,  shall  we 
look  for  churches  more  efficient  and  flourish- 
ing, than  those  of  the  Congregationalists  and 
Baptists  of  England  and  America?  To  be 
sure,  there  have  been  occasional  breaches  of 
fellowship;  but  these  have  resulted  rather 
from  misapprehension,  or  a  want  of  brotherly 
love,  than  from  any  inherent  defect  of  ecclesi- 
astical organization.  Of  course,  the  proper 
remedy  for  them  is  to  be  sought  in  a  better 
understanding  of  our  peculiar  principles,  and 
in  an  increase  of  the  spirit  of  love,  and  not  in 
a  departure  from  that  form  of  church  govern- 
ment which  we  believe  to  have  been  sanc- 
tioned by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 


SECTION     VII. 

Powers  and  Rights  of  a  Church. 

1.  Every  church  has  a  right  to  elect  its  own 
officers.  This  is  a  natural,  inherent  right  of 
all  voluntary  associations.     Who  would  call 


THE      CHURCH.  35 

in  question  the  right  of  any  other  voluntary 
society  to  organize  itself,  by  the  election  of 
such  officers  as  its  constitution  required? 
And  who  can,  with  any  reason,  deny  this  right 
to  churches,  unless  indeed  it  be  expressly 
denied  to  them  by  the  Saviour? 

But  this  right,  so  far  from  being  denied  to 
the  churches  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  is,  as 
we  think,  expressly  granted  to  them.  The 
churches  were  accustomed  to  elect  their  offi- 
cers in  the  presence  and  under  the  eye  of  the 
apostles  themselves.  When  an  individual 
was  to  be  appointed  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas, 
the  disciples  chose  two  from  among  their  num- 
ber, one  of  whom  was  designated  by  lot  to  be 
numbered  with  the  apostles.  Acts  •  1 :  23. 
When  deacons  were  to  be  appointed  in  the 
church  at  Jerusalem,  these  were  first  chosen 
by  the  church,  and  afterwards  ordained  by  the 
apostles.  Acts  6:  5.  The  churches  of  Mac- 
edonia chose  delegates  to  travel  with  Paul  and 
his  company,  and  carry  their  contributions  to 
the  poor.     2  Cor.  8:  19.* 

*  Clement,  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  the 
earliest  and  best  authenticated  fragment  of  Christian  an- 
tiquity, affirms,  that  the  apostles  set  apart  approved  persons 
unto  the  office  of  the  ministry,  "  with  the  consent  of  the 
whole  church.' " 


36  THE      CHURCH. 

This  right  of  choosing  its  own  officers  con- 
tinued to  be  exercised  in  the  church  long 
after  the  age  of  the  apostles.  During  the  first 
century,  says  Waddington,  "on  the  death  of 
a  president,  or  bishop,  or  pastor,  the  choice  of 
a  successor  devolved  on  the  members  of  the  soci- 
ety. In  this  election,  the  people  had  an  equal 
share;  and  it  is  clear  that  their  right  in  this 
matter  was  not  barely  testimonial,  but  judicial 
and  elective.  This  appointment  was  final,  re- 
quiring no  confirmation  from  any  civil  power, 
or  any  superior  prelate."*  Mosheim,  in  his 
history  of  the  second  century,  says,  "The 
form  of  church  government,  which  began  to 
exist  in  the  preceding  century,  was  in  this 
more  industriously  established  and  confirmed 
in  all  its  parts.  One  president  or  bishop  pre- 
sided over  each  church,  wlto  was  created  by  the 
common  suffrage  of  the  whole  people."  Vol.  i, 
p.  142. 

Origen,  near  the  close  of  his  last  book 
against  Celsus,  represents  elders  as  "  chosen  to 
their  office,"  by  the  churches  which  they 
rule.     Cyprian   insists  largely  on  the  right  of 

*  Ecc.  Hist.,  p.  43.  Neander  testifies  to  the  same  fact. 
So  also  does  Bingham,  in  his  Antiquities  of  the  Christian 
Church,  Book  iv,  chap.  2. 


THE      CHURCH.  37 

churches  to  choose  their  own  officers,  affirm- 
ing that  this  was  the  practice,  not  only  of  the 
African  churches,  but  of  those  in  most  of  the 
other  provinces  of  the  Roman  empire.  Epis. 
68.  Socrates,  speaking  of  the  election  of 
Chrysostom,  says,  "he  was  chosen  by  the 
common  vote  of  all,  both  clergy  and  people."* 
Theodoret  describes  the  election  of  Eustatius 
in  the  same  manner,  when  he  says,  "he  was 
compelled  to  take  the  bishopric,  by  the  com- 
mon vote  of  the  bishops  and  clergy  and  all  the 
people."  | 

2.  Another  obvious  right  of  the  churches  is 
that  of  admitting  and  excluding  members.  The 
right  of  admitting  members  belongs  to  church- 
es, in  common  with  all  other  voluntary  asso- 
ciations. Also  the  right  of  censuring  and  ex- 
cluding unworthy  members  is  clearly  a  natural 
right  of  the  churches,  and  as  such  is  expressly 
recognised  in  the  New  Testament.  When  a 
member  of  this  character  is  not  reclaimed  by 
private  remonstrance,  our  Saviour  directs  that 
his  case  be  brought  before  the  church:  and  if 
he  hear  not  the  church,  he  is  by  them  to  be 
excommunicated.     Matt.    18:  17.      "When," 

*  Ecc.  Hist.,  Lib.  vi,  Cap.  2.         t  Ibid.,  Lib.  i,  Cap.  7. 
4 


38  THE      CHURCH. 

says  Neander,  "a  vicious  person  is  to  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  church  at  Corinth,  the  apostle 
regards  it  as  something  which  must  proceed 
from  the  whole  church."  1  Cor.  5:  4.  And 
when  this  same  person,  being  humbled,  is  to 
be  forgiven  and  restored,  his  restoration  is  to 
be  effected  by  the  same  body.     2  Cor.  2:  7. 

3.  Still  another  right  of  the  churches  is  that 
of  holding  and  controlling  their  own  property. 
The  apostle,  speaking  of  widows,  says,  "If 
any  who  believe  have  widows,  let  them  relieve 
them,  and  let  not  the  church  be  charged;"  a 
form  of  expression  which  implies  that  the 
church  at  that  period  had  funds,  which  it  dis- 
posed of  at  discretion.  1  Tim.  6:  16.  The 
church  at  Jerusalem  was  early  in  possession 
of  property  to  a  very  considerable  amount. 
For  a  time,  at  least,  it  seems  to  have  held  the 
property  of  all  its  members.  For  "as  many 
of  them  as  were  possessors  of  lands  or  houses 
sold  them,  and  brought  the  prices  of  the  things 
that  were  sold,  and  laid  them  down  at  the 
apostles'  feet."  Acts  4:  34.  It  was  to  take 
charge  of  the  property  of  the  church,  and  see 
to  its  equitable  distribution,  that  the  order  of 
deacons  was  first  instituted.     Acts  6:  3.* 

*  By  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  and  Maine,  and  perhaps 


THE      CHURCH.  6\) 

In  short,  every  church  may  be  said  to  have 
a  right  to  dispose  of  its  own  proper  internal 
concerns,  subject  only  to  such  restrictions  and 
regulations  as  have  been  imposed  by  Christ 
himself.  It  has  a  right  to  do  all  that  is  neces- 
sary to  be  done,  in  order  to  preserve  its  own 
existence,  and  to  secure  to  itself  the  privileges 
and  blessings  of  the  gospel. 


SECTION    VIII. 

Officers  of  a  Church.. 

It  is  matter  of  general  acknowledgment, 
that  there  are  two  distinct  orders  of  officers  in 
the  church  of  Christ,  viz.  those  of  pastors  and 
deacons.*     Episcopalians  divide  the  order  of 

of  some  other  of  the  States,  "  the  deacons  of  the  several 
Protestant  churches  (not  Episcopal)  are  incorporated,  to 
take  in  succession  all  grants  and  donations,  whether  real 
or  persona],  made  either  to  their  several  churches,  the  poor 
of  their  churches,  or  to  them  and  their  successors,  and  to 
sue  and  defend  in  all  actions  touching  the  same." 

*  There  are  differences  in  degree  among  church  officers, 
which  do  not  amount  to  a  difference  of  order.  Thus,  in 
the  general  order  of  presbyters,  among  ourselves,  there  are 
pastors,  missionaries,  theological  professors,  and  evange- 


\ 


40  THE      CHURCH. 

pastors  into  those  of  bishops  and  presbyters, 
thus  making  three  distinct  orders,  instead  of 
two.  They  insist  that  Christ  has  instituted 
three  orders  of  ministers  in  his  church,  of  which 
bishops  are  the  first;  and  that  it  belongs  to 
bishops,  each  in  his  own  diocese,  to  consecrate 
churches,  to  confirm  and  exclude  members, 
to  ordain  ministers,  and  in  general  to  admin- 
ister the  government  of  the  church.  This 
theory,  in  order  to  be  admitted,  must  be  es- 
tablished by  proof;  the  burden  of  which  lies, 
obviously,  on  the  hands  of  its  abettors.  If 
they  can  support  it  by  sound  and  sufficient 
arguments,  then  let  it  be  universally  received. 
If  not,  it  may  well  be  regarded  in  the  light  of 
mere  theory.  It  is  proposed  now  to  examine 
the  principal  arguments  by  which  the  above 
theory  has  been  attempted  to  be  supported. 
And, 

1.   Some  of  its  advocates  derive  an  analogy 
in  its  favor  from  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity. 

lists.  So  in  the  times  of  the  apostles,  there  were  differ- 
ences in  degree  among  the  teaching  officers  of  the  church, 
and  these  were  designated  by  different  names,  as  apostles, 
prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  teachers;  while  all  may  have 
been  classed  under  the  same  general  order.  1  Cor.  12: 
28.   Eph.  4:  11. 


THE      CHURCH.  41 

This  has  recently  been  done  by  Bishop  Hop- 
kins of  Vermont.*  This  analogy  however,  if 
there  be  any,  is  too  remote  to  be  apprehended 
by  common  minds.  Because  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Godhead,  it  is  not  quite  certain 
that  there  are,  or  should  be,  three  orders  of 
ministers  in  the  church  of  Christ.  And  be- 
sides, if  this  argument  were  admitted,  it  would 
militate  directly  against  the  views  of  those 
who  advance  it.  The  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead  are  equal.  Do  Episcopalians  allow 
that  the  supposed  three  orders  of  ministers 
are  equal? 

2.  Another  argument  for  the  three  orders 
of  ministers  is  drawn  from  the  analogy  of  the 
Jewish  jjriesthood.  As  among  the  Jews,  there 
were  the  high-priest,  the  priests,  and  Levites, 
so  among  Christians,  there  should  be  bishops, 
presbyters,  and  deacons.  But  the  priesthood  in 
Israel  was  not  designed  to  prefigure  the  gospel 
ministry,  but  rather  the  priesthood  of  the  Son 
of  God.  The  high-priest  in  Israel  was  a  type 
of  the  great  "High-Priest  of  our  profession ;" 
and  the  sacrifices  which  were  offered  by  the 
Jewish    priesthood  all  looked  forward  to  the 

*  Primitive  Church,  &c,  p.  235. 

4* 


42  THE    'CHURCH. 

great  atoning  sacrifice  which  was  offered  on 
the  cross.  There  is  properly  no  priest  under 
the  gospel  dispensation,  except  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  "  Not  with  the  blood  of  goats  and 
calves,  but  with  his  own  blood,  hath  he  en- 
tered once  into  the  holy  place,  having  obtain- 
ed eternal  redemption  for  us."  To  call  a 
gospel  minister  &  priest  is  a  palpable  perver- 
sion and  abuse  of  the  term.* 

The  Romanists,  who  hold  to  the  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation,  and  believe  that  in  every 
mass,  or  celebration  of  the  eucharist,  there 
is  offered  a  literal  sacrifice,  may  consistently 
denominate  their  ministers  priests.  But  in 
the  mouth  of  a  Protestant,  the  term,  as  ap- 
plied to  gospel  ministers,  is  strange  and  un- 
meaning. Hence,  no  analogy  can  be  drawn 
from  the  priesthood  in  Israel,  by  which  to  de- 
termine the  different  orders  of  ministers  in  the 
kingdom  of  Christ. f 

*  Gospel  ministers  are  never  called  priests  in  the  New- 
Testament,  except  as  they  are  included  in  the  general 
company  of  believers,  who  are  mystically  denominated 
<c  kings  and  priests  unto  God."     Rev.  1  :  6. 

t  The  ministry  of  the  church  of  Christ  was  derived,  not 
from  the  temple,  but  the  synagogue.  According  to  Dean 
Prideaux,  "the  first  officers  in  the  synagogue  were  the 


THE      CHURCH.  43 

And  if  this  analogy  were  admissible,  it 
would  prove  too  much  for  those  Protestants 
who  rely  upon  it.  It  would  prove  the  neces- 
sity, not  of  a  bench  of  bishops,  but  of  a  prince 
of  bishops,  a  Pope,  who  should  be  as  highly 
exalted  above  his  brethren,  as  the  high-priest 
in  Israel  was  above  the  chief  priests,  or  per- 
haps the  ordinary  priests. 

3.  It  has  been  said  that  bishops,  as  distinct 
from  presbyters,  are  expressly  spoken  of  in  the 
Neiv  Testament.  That  bishops  are  repeatedly 
and  expressly  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  eertain;  but  it  is  also  certain,  from  a 
comparison  of  passages,  that  the  terms  bishop 
and  presbyter  are  there  used  interchangeably, 
as  referring  not  only  to  the  same  office,  but 
often  to  the  same  persons.     Paul,  writing  to 

elders,  who  governed  all  the  affairs  of  it,  and  directed  all 
the  duties  of  religion  therein  to  be  performed.  These  are 
in  the  New  Testament  called  the  rulers  of  the  synagogue.'" 
Under  these  "  were  the  deacons,  or  inferior  ministers  of 
the  synagogue,  who  kept  the  sacred  books,  and  all  other 
utensils  belonging  to  the  synagogue,  and  brought  them 
forth,  whenever  they  were  to  be  used  in  the  public  ser- 
vice. Thus  it  is  said  of  our  Saviour,  when  he  was  called 
upon  to  read  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth,  that  after  he 
had  done,  he  gave  the  book  again  to  the  minister.'"  Luke 
4:  20. — Prideaux''  Connexion,  Part  i,  Book  6,  Sect.  4. 


44  THE     CHURCH. 

the  Philippians,  mentions  no  church  officers 
but  bishops  and  deacons.  And  when  giving 
directions  to  Timothy  respecting  the  qualifica- 
tions of  church  officers,  he  mentions  none  but 
bishops  and  deacons; — a  manifest  indication 
that  these  were  the  only  standing  officers  in 
the  apostolical  churches,  and  of  course  that 
bishop  and  presbyter  relate  to  the  same  office. 
See  Phil.  1:1.  1  Tim.  3:  1.  And  this  con- 
clusion is  established,  by  a  reference  to  other 
passages.  Titus  was  left  in  Crete,  that  he 
might  ordain  elders  or  presbyters  in  every 
city.  But  in  a  following  verse,  these  elders 
are  denominated  bishops.  Tit.  1 :  5-7.  In 
his  valedictory  address  to  the  elders  of  the 
church  at  Ephesus,  Paul  calls  these  elders 
overseers  or  (as  in  the  original)  bishops.  Acts 
20:  17,  28.  Peter  exhorts  elders  to  take  the 
oversight  of  the  flock,  or  (as  it  is  in  the 
Greek)  to  do  the  work  of  bishops,  not  by  con- 
straint, but  willingly.  1  Pet.  5:  2.  These 
passages  show  that,  in  the  language  of  the 
apostles,  elder  and  bishop  denote  the  same 
office,  and  are  applied  often  to  the  same 
person. 

4.   It  has  been  urged  in  favor  of  the   three 
orders  of  ministers  in  the   church  of  Christ, 


THE      CHURCH.  45 

that  during  his  personal  ministry,  there  were 
three  orders,  viz.,  himself,  the  twelve  apostles, 
and  the  seventy.  But  to  this  argument  there 
are  many  objections;   as, 

(1.)  It  represents  Christ  as  a  minister  in 
his  own  church, — a  servant  of  himself ! 

(2.)  It  involves  the  absurdity  and  arrogance 
of  supposing  that,  on  the  death  of  Christ,  the 
apostles  wTere  promoted  to  the  same  rank  in 
the  church,  which  he  held  during  his  life;  and 
that,  on  the  death  of  the  apostles,  bishops  were 
placed  in  the  same  exalted  rank.  They  be- 
came all  of  them  literally,  what  one  of  them 
has  arrogantly  claimed  to  be,  Christ's  vicars, 
his  vicegerents  upon  the  earth. 

(3.)  This  argument  implies  farther,  that 
the  seventy  were  an  order  of  ministers  distinct 
from  the  apostles,  and  inferior  to  them; — a 
supposition  of  which  the  gospels  furnish  not 
a  particle  of  proof.  To  be  sure,  the  twelve 
were  commissioned  at  one  time,  and  the  sev- 
enty at  another;  but  they  were  commissioned 
to  the  same  work,  and  in  almost  precisely  the 
same  words.  (Compare  Luke  9:  1-6,  with 
Luke  10:  1-20.)  During  the  lifetime  of  Je- 
sus, the  work  of  the  apostles  was  altogether 
preparatory,  and  so  was  that  of  the  seventy; 


46  THE       CHURCH. 

and  both  were  commissioned   to  do  the  same 
things. 

(4.)  The  supposition  before  us  leaves  no 
place  for  the  important  preparatory  ministry 
of  John  the  Baptist.  He  surely  must  be  ad- 
mitted into  the  number  of  ministers,  and  then 
we  have  four  orders  instead  of  three. 

(5.)  It  is  objection  enough  to  this  argument, 
if  there  were  no  other,  that  during  the  life  of 
Jesus,  the  Christian  church  had  no  organized 
existence.  The  old  dispensation,  with  all  its 
rules  and  ceremonies,  continued  in  full  force 
till  the  death  of  the  Saviour.  The  vail  of  the 
temple  was  not  rent  in  twain,  till  the  hour  of 
his  death.  The  hand-writing  of  ordinances 
was  not  taken  away,  till  it  was  nailed  to  his 
cross.  But  if  the  Christian  church  had  no 
organized  existence,  before  the  death  of 
Christ,  then  surely  it  could  not  have  had  an 
organized  ministry. 

5.  It  has  been  urged  again  in  favor  of  the 
three  orders  of  ministers,  that  when  the  triad 
above  considered  had  been  broken  up  by  the 
ascension  of  our  Lord,  it  was  almost  imme- 
diately restored,  by  the  appointment  of  the 
seven  deacons.  There  were  then  the  apostles, 
the  seventy,  and  the  deacons.     It  may  be  ob- 


THE      CHURCH.  47 

jected  to  this  argument,  as  to  the  preceding, 
that  it  supposes  the  apostles,  on  the  ascension 
of  Christ,  to  have  come  into  the  same  rank 
which  he  had  previously  occupied; — a  suppo- 
sition involving  an  arrogance  of  assumption, 
from  which  they  would  have  shrunk  back  with 
horror. 

It  may  also  be  objected  to  this  argument, 
that  it  mistakes  altogether  the  nature  and 
character  of  that  ministry,  by  which  the  gos- 
pel dispensation  was  introduced.  It  supposes 
this  ministry  to  have  been  settled  and  perma- 
nent, whereas  it  was  obviously  preparatory  and 
temporary.  Such  was  the  ministry  of  John 
the  Baptist.  It  accomplished  its  end,  and 
passed  away.  Such  would  have  been  the 
ministry  of  the  apostles,  if  they  had  not  re- 
ceived a  new  and  more  extended  commission, 
after  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  And 
such  was  the  ministry  of  the  seventy.  They 
were  sent  out  for  a  specific  purpose — to 
prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord — to  "go  before 
him,  into  every  city  and  place  whither  he  him- 
self would  come."  Luke  10:  1.  The  object 
of  their  ministry  they  soon  accomplished,  and 
then  their  service  ended.  Accordingly,  we 
hear  of  them  no  more.    There  is  not  the  slight- 


48  THE      CHURCH. 

est  mention  of  them  in  any  subsequent  part 
of  the  gospel  history.  From  the  mere  silence 
of  Scripture  respecting  them,  the  conclusion 
is  incontestible,  that  they  had  no  existence, 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  a  commis- 
sioned and  authorized  body  of  ministers. 

I  object  further  to  the  argument  under  con- 
sideration, that  it  supposes  a  necessity,  and 
assigns  a  reason,  for  the  appointment  of  dea- 
cons, of  which  the  apostles  seem  never  to 
have  thought.  In  directing  this  appointment, 
instead  of  the  plain  account  recorded  in  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Acts,  why  did  not  the  apostles 
say,  'As  we  have  now  come  into  the  place  of 
the  ascended  Saviour,  and  the  seventy  have 
come  into  our  place,  therefore,  let  an  order  of 
deacons  be  created  to  come  into  their  place.' 
A  reason  such  as  this  for  the  appointment  of 
deacons,  in  all  probability  never  occurred  to 
the  apostles.  Certain  it  is,  they  never  urged 
it,  and  never  could  have  urged  it  consistently 
with  truth. 

It  may  be  still  farther  objected  to  the  argu- 
ment before  us,  not  only  that  the  apostles  were 
not  promoted  into  the  place  of  the  Saviour, 
and  the  seventy  into  the  place  of  the  apostles, 
but  neither  did  the  deacons  come  into  the  place  of 


THE       CHURCH.  49 

the  seventy.  Not  to  urge,  what  is  commonly 
believed,  that  these  deacons  themselves  be- 
longed to  the  number  of  the  seventy,  scarcely 
any  two  offices  can  be  conceived  of  as  more 
distinct,  than  those  of  the  seventy,  and  of  the 
deacons.  The  work  of  the  seventy,  as  I  have 
said,  was  altogether  preparatory.  They  were 
to  go  before  the  face  of  Christ  into  every  city 
and  place  whither  he  himself  would  come. 
On  the  contrary,  the  business  of  the  deacons 
was  to  take  charge  of  the  property  of  the 
church,  and  make  equitable  distribution  of  it, 
in  relieving  the  necessities  of  the  poor. 

6.  It  is  urged  again,  in  proof  of  the  three 
orders  of  ministers,  that  these  orders  actually 
existed  in  the  apostolic  churches.  There  were 
then  the  apostles,  the  presbyters,  and  deacons. 
And  in  proof  that  these  three  orders  were  de- 
signed to  be  perpetuated,  it  is  urged  that  the 
apostles  ordained  successors  to  themselves. 
Such  was  Timothy  at  Ephesus,  and  Titus  at 
Crete.  Such  were  all  the  bishops  of  the  prim- 
itive churches.  And  such,  by  an  uninterrupt- 
ed succession,  are  the  bishops  of  our  own 
times. 

In  examining  this  argument,  it  will  be  nec- 
essary to  ascertain,  so  far  as  we  can,  the  pre- 
5 


50  THE      CHURCH. 

cise  nature  and  character  of  the  apostolical 
office.  And  in  doing  this,  we  may  consider 
the  apostles  in  a  twofold  light;  first,  as  simple 
ministers  of  Christ ;  and  secondly,  as  ministers 
destined  to  a  peculiar  work,  and  clothed  with 
peculiar  authority  and  power. 

In  the  first  place,  the  apostles  may  be  con- 
sidered as  simple  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ. 
They  were  commissioned  as  ministers,  and  the 
commission  which  Christ  gave  to  them  is  the 
only  one  which  he  has  ever  given  to  his  min- 
istering servants.  It  is  that  under  which  all 
his  ministers  now  act,  and  to  which  they  con- 
tinually appeal:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  &c 
Mark  16:    15. 

And  as  the  apostles  were  commissioned, 
like  other  ministers,  so  they  often  speak  of 
themselves  as  mere  ministers  of  Christ.  "  Let 
a  man  so  account  of  us  as  of  the  ministers  of 
Christ."  "  Who  hath  made  us  able  ministers 
of  Jesus  Christ."  1  Cor.  4:  1.  2  Cor.  3:  6. 
The  apostles  often  speak  of  themselves  as  in 
the  rank  of  elders.  "The  elders  which  are 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder." 
I  Pet.  5:  1.  "The  elder  unto  the  elect  lady." 
"  The  elder  unto  the  well  beloved  Gaius,"    2 


THE      CHURCH,  51 

and  3  John.  As  simple  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ,  the  apostles  have  left  successors  after 
them.  In  this  view,  all  Christ's  faithful  min- 
isters may  be  regarded  as  in  the  succession  of 
the  apostles. 

But  the  apostles  were  destined  to  a  peculiar 
work,  and  were  clothed  with  peculiar  authority 
and  powers;  and  in  all  that  was  peculiar  to 
them,  and  which  went  to  raise  them  above 
other  ministers,  it  will  appear  that  they  have 
left  no  successors. 

(1.)  The  apostles  were  commissioned  directly 
by  Christ,  as  no  other  ministers  of  the  gospel 
ever  were. 

(2.)  It  was  a  part  of  the  peculiar  work  of 
the  apostles  to  bear  witness  to  the  actions  and 
sufferings  of  Jesus.  This  is  evident  from  what 
was  said  at  the  appointment  of  Matthias  to  the 
apostleship.  "One  must  be  ordained  to  be  a 
witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection."  Acts  1:22. 
In  this  important  part  of  their  work,  the  apos- 
tles can  have  left  no  successors. 

(3.)  As  the  first  missionaries  of  Christ  and 
founders  of  churches,  the  apostles  have  left  no 
successors.  None  can  pretend  to  have  suc- 
ceeded to  that  degree  of  authority  and  influ- 
ence in  the  churches,  which  they  rightfully 
possessed. 


52  THE      CHURCH. 

(4.)  The  apostles  were  inspired  men;  and  as 
such,  were  qualified  to  publish  doctrines  to 
the  churches,  and  to  enact  laws,  which  should 
carry  with  them  the  authority  of  God,  Here, 
again,  they  have  left  no  successors. 

(5.)  The  apostles  were  endowed,  beyond 
others,  with  the  power  of  performing  miracles; 
for  they  not  only  wrought  miracles  themselves, 
but  could  impart  this  gift,  bv  the  laying  on  of 
their  hands.  See  Acts  8:  15-20.  Who  has 
succeeded  to  them  in  this  respect? 

(6.)  The  apostles  not  only  had  authority  in 
the  churches  as  inspired  men,  but  they  v/ere 
able  to  enforce  this  authority,  by  inflicting 
judgments  on  the  disobedient.  Thus  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  were  struck  dead,  at  the  word 
of  Peter;  and  Elymas  the  sorcerer  was  smit- 
ten with  blindness,  at  the  word  of  Paul.  Acts 
5:1-10.  13:11.  To  this  terrific  power  of  the 
apostles,  Paul  repeatedly  alludes  in  his  ad- 
dresses to  the  Corinthians.  "If  I  come  again, 
I  will  not  spare."  "  Shall  I  come  unto  you 
with  a  rod,"  &c.  2  Cor.  13:2.  1  Cor.  4:  21. 
The  apostles  are  here  presented  in  another 
light,  in  which  they  manifestly  have  no  suc- 
cessors. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that, 


THECHURCH.  53 

while  in  the  mere  office  of  gospel  ministers, 
the  apostles  have  been  succeeded  by  all  faith- 
ful ministers,  from  their  own  times  to  the 
present,  in  those  things  which  went  to  distin- 
guish them  from  ordinary  ministers,  to  raise 
them  above  them,  and  to  confer  a  peculiarity 
and  a  superiority,  the  apostles  have  left  no 
successors.  From  the  nature  of  the  case, 
they  can  have  left  none.  And  if  any  will  pre- 
tend to  be  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  in 
their  high  and  peculiar  character — in  that 
which  went  to  distinguish  them  from  ordinary 
ministers;  then  let  them  prove  their  succes- 
sion by  something  more  than  mere  words. 
Let  them  show  to  the  world  that  they  are  what 
the  apostles  once  were.  Have  they  received 
their  commission  directly  from  the  Saviour? 
Were  they  eye-witnesses  of  his  life,  death,  and 
resurrection?  Have  they  claim  to  authority 
and  influence  as  the  first  missionaries  of 
Christ,  and  (under  God)  the  founders  of  his 
church?  Have  they  inspiration — and  the  gift 
of  miracles — and  the  power  to  impart  this  gift? 
Are  they  armed,  as  the  apostles  were,  with 
the  judgments  of  heaven,  and  authorized  to 
inflict  these  judgments  on  the  rebellious?  In 
other  words,  are  they  what  the  apostles  were? 
5* 


: 


54  THE      CHURCH. 

Have  they  succeeded  to  all  or  to  aught  of  that 
which  went  to  give  to  the  apostles  their  pecu- 
liarity and  authority  in  the  church  of  Christ? 
If  not,  then  let  them  boast  no  more  of  their 
being  the  successors  of  the  apostles.  They 
can  be  successors  of  the  apostles  in  no  other 
sense  than  as  all  faithful  gospel  ministers  are; 
— in  no  other  sense  than  as  being  the  simple 
ministers  of  Jesus. 

If  bishops,  as  a  distinct  and  superior  order 
of  ministers,  have  succeeded  to  the  apostles, 
then  why  are  they  not  called  apostles?  Why 
has  the  name  of  office  been  changed?  These 
two  names  are  not  synonymous;  nor  were 
they  ever  so  considered  in  the  church  of 
Christ.  An  apostle  is  not  a  bishop,  nor  is  a 
bishop  an  apostle.  An  apostle  is  a  mission- 
ary ;  a  minister  at  large;  one  who  has  (what 
Paul  tells  us  he  had)  "the  care  of  all  the 
churches."  2  Cor.  11:  28.  A  bishop  has, 
or  should  have,  a  pastoral  charge.  He  is  the 
overseer  of  a  particular  flock.  He  is  con- 
fined in  his  attentions  to  a  particular  field  of 
labor.  But  to  what  particular  fields  of  labor 
were  the  apostles  confined?  To  what  part  of 
the  Christian  world  did  not  their  influence 
and  authority  extend?     It  is  evidence  enough 


THE      CHURCH.  55 

that  bishops,  in  their  alleged  superior  capaci- 
ty, have  not  succeeded  to  the  apostles,  that 
they  have  not  succeeded  to  the  name  of  the 
apostles,  nor  to  that  which  this  name  specifi- 
cally imports.  In  short,  they  are  not  apos- 
tles, either  as  to  the  name,  or  the  thing.* 

It  is  alleged  that  the  apostles,  in  their  su- 
perior capacity,  ordained  successors  to  them- 
selves. Such,  in  particular,  was  Timothy  at 
Ephesus,  and  Titus  at  Crete.  But  what  evi- 
dence have  we  that  Timothy  was  ever  bishop 
of  Ephesus?  He  is  never  so  called  in  the 
Scriptures;  nor  does  it  appear  that  he  ever 
had  a  permanent  residence  at  Ephesus.  "I 
besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephesus,  when 
I  went  into  Macedonia,  that  thou  mightest 
charge    some   that   they  teach   no  other  doc- 

*  "The  function  of  an  apostle  differed  widely  from  that 
of  a  bishop;  and  I  therefore  do  not  think  that  James,  who 
was  an  apostle,  was  ever  appointed  to,  or  discharged,  the 
episcopal  office  at  Jerusalem.  The  government  of  the 
church  in  that  city,  it  rather  seems  to  me,  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  its  presbyters,  but  so  as  that  nothing  of  mo- 
ment could  be  done,  without  the  advice  and  authority  of 
James,  the  same  sort  of  respectful  deference  being  paid  to 
his  will,  as  had  formerly  been  manifested  for  that  of  the 
apostles  at  large." — Mosheim's  Commentaries,  Vol.  i, 
p.  231. 


56  THE      CHURCH. 

trine."  1  Tim.  1:  3.  Here  is  all  the  proof 
which  the  Scriptures  furnish,  that  Timothy 
was  constituted  bishop  of  Ephesus.  And  this 
is  not  only  no  proof  at  all,  but  strong  proof  of 
the  contrary  supposition;  as  it  is  evident,  from 
the  passage  itself,  that  Timothy's  mission  at 
Ephesus  was  a  temporary  one,  which  he  was 
expected  to  discharge,  and  then  leave  the 
place.  Paul  and  Timothy  were  at  Ephesus 
together,  at  the  time  of  the  uproar  occasioned 
by  Demetrius.*  On  account  of  this  disturb- 
ance, Paul  left  suddenly,  and  "departed  for 
to  go  into  Macedonia;  "  (Acts  20:  1)  and  he 
besought  Timothy  to  remain  for  a  time,  that 
he  might  farther  instruct  and  regulate  the 
newly  planted  Ephesian  church.  Timothy, 
without  doubt,  did  remain  for  a  time,  and  then 
commenced  following  the  apostle  as  usual; 
for  subsequent  to  this  date,  we  repeatedly 
hear  of  Timothy  in  connection  with  the  apos- 
tle, but   never    as   a    permanent    resident    at 

*  Timothy  and  Erastus  had  previously  been  sent  into 
Macedonia,  but  while  Paul  "  stayed  in  Asia  for  a  season," 
Timothy  returned  to  him;  so  that  he  was  with  him  at  Eph- 
esus at  the  time  of  the  disturbance.  See  Acts  19  :  23. 
Also  Acts  20  :  1,  and  1  Tim.  1:3.  I  follow  the  chronol- 
ogy of  Lardner  here. 


THE      CHURCH.  57 

Ephesus.     2  Cor.   1:    1.     Phil.   1:    1.     Heb. 
13:  23. 

That  Paul  constituted  Timothy  an  apostle 
or  bishop  at  Ephesus,  before  leaving  the  place 
to  go  into  Macedonia,  and  before  writing  to 
him  this  first  epistle,  is  contradicted  by  all  the 
circumstances  of  his  leaving,  and  by  the  very 
language  of  the  epistle  itself.  As  remarked 
above,  he  left  Ephesus  suddenly,  and  without 
opportunity  for  so  solemn  an  act  as  that  of 
constituting  a  new  apostle.  And  then  the  lan- 
guage of  the  epistle,  though  kind  and  re- 
spectful, is  not  that  of  one  apostle  to  another, 
but  rather  that  of  Paul  the  apostle  to  a  beloved 
youag  minister,  whose  appropriate  labor  and 
privilege  it  was  to  attend  upon  him,  and  to 
execute  his  orders. 

But  there  is  another  consideration,  which 
proves  conclusively  that  Timothy  could  not 
have  been  ordained  bishop  of  Ephesus,  at  the 
time  referred  to  in  this  first  epistle.  At  ar 
subsequent  period,  when  Paul  called  for  the  J 
Ephesian  elders,  and  met  them  at  Miletus, 
there  was  no  bishop  over  them.  In  his  ad- 
dress to  them  on  this  occasion,  no  mention  is 
made  of  Timothy  as  their  bishop,  or  of  his 
ever  having  been  their   bishop.     Indeed,  no 


58  THE      CHURCH. 

mention  is  made  of  any  bishop,  except  as  they 
were  all  bishops  alike.  It  is  morally  certain 
that  Timothy  was  not  bishop  of  Ephesus  at 
the  time  of  this  meeting,  and  that  he  never 
had  been.  And  it  is  quite  certain  that  Paul 
did  not  constitute  him  bishop  of  Ephesus  sub- 
sequent to  this  meeting,  as  the  apostle  never 
was  at  Ephesus  more.  He  never  saw  the 
faces  of  these  elders  afterwards.  Acts  20: 
25.*  I  hold  therefore,  not  only  that  there  is 
no  evidence  in  Scripture  that  Timothy  was 
ever  bishop  of  Ephesus,  but  that  there  is 
abundant  evidence  to  the  contrary.  Indeed, 
Timothy  was  not  a  bishop  in  any  sense,  ex- 
cept as  all  Christ's  ministers  may  be  denom- 
inated bishops.  Timothy  was  an  evangelist. 
He  is  expressly  called  an  evangelist;  and 
called  so,  long  after  his  alleged  exaltation  to 
a  bishopric — to  an  apostleship.  2  Tim.  4:  5. 
An  evangelist,  in  the  primitive  church,  was 
an  itinerant  preacher,  a  missionary,  who  had 
no  settled  pastoral  charge,  who  labored  fre- 
quently in  company  with  some  one  of  the 
apostles,  and  was  under  their  direction.  Such 
was  Philip;  and  such  was  Timothy; — and  this 

*  Appendix,  Note  E. 


THE      CHURCH.  59 

account  of  the  matter  agrees  with  all  that  we 
find  written  or  said  of  Timothy  in  the  New 
Testament. 

Of  Titus,  it  is  said,  "For  this  cause  left  I 
thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order 
the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders 
in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." 
Chap.  1:5.  But  this  passage,  so  far  from 
proving  that  Titus  was,  at  this  time,  bishop  of 
Crete,  furnishes  evidence  to  the  contrary.  It 
appears  on  the  face  of  it,  that  Titus  was  left 
in  Crete  for  a  temporary  and  specific  purpose, 
which  purpose  being  accomplished,  he  would 
naturally  be  called  away  to  some  other  field 
of  labor.  Accordingly,  we  hear  of  Titus  af- 
terwards, not  as  residing  in  Crete,  and  exer- 
cising the  office  of  a  bishop  there,  but  as  gone 
to  another  place.     2  Tim.  4:  10. 

Titus,  like  Timothv,  was,  no  doubt,  an 
evangelist;  and  was  left  in  Crete  to  "do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist."  And  if  it  be  objected, 
that  ordaining  elders  is  the  work,  not  of  evan- 
gelists, but  of  bishops  only,  I  have  only  to  say, 
let  this  be  proved.  The  presbyters  at  Antioch 
laid  hands  on  Paul  and  Barnabas,  before 
they  were  sent  out  on  their  first  mission  to  \ 
the  heathen.     Acts  13:  3.     Timothy  was  or- *r-v 


60  THE      CHURCH. 

dained  "by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
presbytery."  1  Tim.  4:14.  Until  it  is  proved, 
in  face  of  these  examples,  that  bishops  only 
have  the  power  of  ordination,  it  never  can  be 
proved  that  Titus  was  a  bishop,  simply  because 
he  took  it  upon  him  to  ordain. 

If  Titus  was  bishop  of  Crete,  he  was  not  a 
parochial,  but  a  diocesan  bishop; — bishop,  not 
of  a  single  church,  but  of  a  great  many 
churches,  scattered  over  this  extensive  island. 
In  other  words,  if  he  was  bishop  at  all,  he  was 
such  a  bishop  as  was  not  known,  and  cannot 
be  found  in  the  church  of  Christ,  during  the 
next  two  hundred  years.  To  my  own  mind, 
this  is  conclusive  evidence,  that  Titus  never 
was  bishop  of  Crete.  And  thus  the  alleged 
apostolic  succession  of  bishops  fails,  in  the  first 
stages  of  it,  and  the  argument  derived  from  it 
falls  to  the  ground.* 

7.  It  has  been  urged  in  proof  of  a  third  or- 
der of  ministers  in  the  church,  that,  in  his 
messages  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  our 
Saviour  addresses  an  individual  in  each,  whom 
he  calls  its  angel.  But  how  do  we  know  that 
this  angel  was  a  bishop?     The  words  angel 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  F. 


THE      CHURCH.  61 

and  bishop  are  not  synonymous,  nor  have  we 
any  authority  in  the  primitive  age  for  using 
them  interchangeably. 

Some  have  supposed  that,  by  the  angel  of 
the  church,  our  Saviour  intended  the  church 
itself,  or  the  ministry  of  the  church,  without 
applying  the  term  to  any  particular  individual. 
In  proof  of  this  it  has  been  urged,  that  the 
address,  in  every  instance,  is  properly  to  the 
church,  and  that  the  plural  number  is  some- 
times used  in  place  of  the  singular.  "The 
devil  shall  cast  some  of  you  into  prison,  that 
ye  may  be  tried,  and  ye  shall  have  tribulation 
ten  days;  " — a  singular  form  of  expression  to 
to  be  used,  in  reference  to  an  individual. 

Others  have  supposed  that  the  angel  of  the 
church  was  the  presiding  presbyter  in  the 
church.  In  each  of  these  churches  there 
were,  probably,  several  presbyters  who,  when 
they  met  for  business  or  devotion,  would  need 
a  moderator,  or  presiding  officer.  Such  an 
officer  was  common  in  the  next  century,  and 
was  called  the  president  of  the  church.  Pos- 
sibly, the  usage  may  have  been  introduced  as 
early  as  the  close  of  the  first  century;  and  the 
presiding  presbyter  or  elder  may  be  denomi- 
nated by  our  Saviour  the  angel  of  the  church. 
6 


62  THE      CHURCH. 

This  supposition  is  the  more  probable,  since, 
according  to  Prideaux,  one  of  the  presbyters  of 
the  Jewish  synagogue — the  one  who  officiated 
in  offering  the  public  prayers — was  customa- 
rily called  the  angel  of  the  congregation* 

8.  It  is  further  urged,  in  proof  of  the  three 
orders  of  ministers  in  the  church  of  Christ, 
that  these  orders  prevailed  in  the  ages  imme- 
diately succeeding  the  apostles,  and  (with  few 
exceptions)  have  prevailed  in  all  periods  since. 
In  reply  to  this  argument,  it  is  proposed,  not 
to  quote  the  fathers  at  length — our  limits  do 
not  admit  of  this; — but  to  give,  in  as  few 
words  as  possible,  the  results  of  a  full  and  la- 
borious examination  of  the  fathers  of  the  first 
two  centuries,  with  reference  to  this  very 
subject. 

Herrnas,  the  author  of  the  Shepherd,  was  a 
member  ofthe  church  at  Rome,  and  lived  in 
the  first  century.  He  uses  the  terms  bishop 
and  presbyter  promiscuously,  and  speaks  of 
presbyters  as  'presiding  over  the  church  at 
Rome.     Vis.  ii,  Sect.  4. 

One  of  the  earliest  and  best  accredited  pieces 
of  Christian  antiquity  is  the  first  epistle  ofthe 

*  Connexion,  Part  i,  Book  6,  Sect.  4. 


THE      CHURCH.  63 

Roman  Clement  to  the  Corinthians.  This 
epistle  is  addressed,  not  from  one  bishop  to 
another,  but  from  the  church  at  Rome  to  the 
church  at  Corinth.  In  it  the  writer  says,  that 
the  apostles  every  where  appointed  bishops 
and  deacons  in  the  churches — making  no  men- 
tion of  a  third  order.  He  says  that  presbyters 
had  been  placed  over  the  church  at  Corinth, 
and  complains  that  certain  presbyters  had 
been  ejected  from  the  episcopate.  He  exhorts 
the  Corinthian  brethren  to  restore  these  eject- 
ed presbyters,  and  to  submit  themselves  to  them. 
The  phraseology  of  this  celebrated  epistle  is 
precisely  similar  to  that  of  Paul,  on  the  same 
subject.  No  mention  is  made  of  more  than 
two  orders  of  church  officers,  and  the  terms 
bishop  and  presbyter  are  used  continually  as 
referring  to  the  same  office.     Sect.  42—57. 

Of  Polycarp  we  have  only  one  epistle  re- 
maining, which  is  addressed,  not  to  the  bishop, 
but  to  the  church,  at  Philippi.  In  it  the  word 
bishop  does  not  once  occur.  Polycarp  exhorts 
the  Philippians  to  be  subject  to  their  presbyters 
and  deacons.     Sect.  5. 

In  what  remains  of  Papias,  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  of  bishops,  but  of  presbyters  only. 
This  father  denominates  the  apostles  presby- 


64  THE      CHURCH. 

ters.  "If  I  met  any  where  with  one  who  had 
conversed  with  the  presbyters,  I  inquired  after 
the  sayings  of  the  presbyters;  what  Andrew, 
what  Peter,  what  Philip,  what  Thomas  or 
James  had  said."  In  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist., 
Book  iii,  Chap.  39. 

In  the  writings  of  Justin,  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  of  bishops.  He  speaks  of  one  in 
each  church  as  its  president;  and  the  president 
and  deacon  are  the  only  church  officers  of 
which  he  gives  us  any  account.  Apol.  i, 
pp.  95,  97. 

Irenaeus  uses  the  terms  bishop  and  presby- 
ter interchangeably.*  He  speaks  of  "tradi- 
tions preserved  in  the  churches  through  a 
succession    of  presbyters."      Polycarp,   who 

•  *  "  We  ought  to  obey  those  presbyters  who  have  succes- 
sion from  the  apostles,  who,  with  the  succession  of  the 
episcopate,  received  the  certain  gift  of  truth."  "Such 
presbyters  the  church  nourishes,  concerning  whom  the 
prophet  says,  I  will  give  you  princes  in  peace,  and  bishops 
in  righteousness."  Mvers.  Hares,  Lib.  4.,  Cap.  43,  44. 
Writing  to  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  Irenaeus  repeatedly 
denominates  the  early  bishops  of  Rome,  those  who  had 
preceded  Victor,  presbyters.  See  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.,  Book 
5.,  Chap.  24. 


THE      CHURCH.  65 

was  bishop  of  the  church  at  Smyrna,  he  re- 
presents as  "an  apostolical  presbyter."* 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  (a  presbyter)  speaks 
of  himself,  and  others  like  him,  as  having  rule 
over  the  churches,  and  as  being  called  pastors. 
He  sometimes  speaks  of  bishop  and  presbyter 
as  the  same,  and  sometimes  makes  a  distinc- 
tion between  them.! 

Various  epistles  have  been  published  under 
the  name  of  Ignatius,  an  early  minister  or 
bishop  of  the  church  at  Antioch.  From  among 
these,  seven  have  been  selected,  abridged, 
and  published  by  archbishop  Wake,  as  being 
probably  genuine.  There  is  too  much  evi- 
dence, however,  that  these  seven  are  spurious, 
or  at  least  that  they  have  been  interpolated, 
and  with  special  reference  to  this  very  sub- 
ject.J  In  these  epistles,  the  three  orders  of 
ministers  are  pretty  frequently  and  distinctly 
recognised.  There  is  this,  however,  to  be 
considered:  The  bishop  of  Ignatius  is  never  a 
diocesan  bishop,  but  the  mere  pastor  of  a  sin- 
gle church.  || 

*  Epis.  to  Florinus,  in  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist. ,  Book  5,  Ch.  20. 
t  Psedog.  Lib.  i,  vi.  See  also  Tract  "  Quis  Dives,"  &c 
$  See  Appendix,  Note  G. 

II  Bishop  Burnet  says  "the  names  of  bishop  and  pres- 
6* 


66  THE      CHURCH. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  and  onwards,  important 
changes  took  place  in  the  government  of  the 
churches.  The  power  of  the  clergy  was  in- 
creased, and  the  liberties  of  the  churches  were 
diminished,  and  ultimately  destroyed.  In  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries,  bishops  generally 
claimed  to  be  a  distinct  and  superior  order  of 
ministers.  Still,  they  had  not  the  exclusive 
power  of  ordination,  nor  was  it  believed,  by 
the  more  intelligent  Christians,  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  them  and  presbyters  was  of 
apostolic  origin.  Thus  Jerome  testifies  that 
it  had  been  the  custom  at  Alexandria,  for 
more  than  two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  for 
presbyters  to  choose  and  to  constitute  their 
bishops.*  And  Eusebius  affirms  that,  in  his 
day,  evangelists  sometimes  "ordained  pas- 
tor s.| 

The  author  of  an  ancient  commentary,  as- 
cribed to  Ambrose,  says,  "The  ordination  of 
a  bishop  and  presbyter  is  the  same;"  since 
"a  bishop  is  only  the  first  among  presbyters." 

byter  are  used  for  the  same  thing  in  Scripture,  and  also 
are  used  promiscuously  by  the  writers  of  the  two  first  cen- 
turies." See  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  311. 
*  Epw.  to  Evagrius.  f  Ecc.  Hist.,  Lib.  iii,  Cap.  37. 


THE      CHURCH.  67 

And  again;  "The  first  presbyters  were  called 
bishops;"  and  "in  Egypt,  the  presbyters  con- 
secrate, if  the  bishop  be  not  present."* 

In  another  ancient  work,  ascribed  to  Au- 
gustine, the  author  says,  "The  apostle  Paul 
proves  that  by  presbyter  is  to  be  understood 
bishop;  since  he  instructs  Timothy,  whom  he 
had  ordained  a  presbyter,  how  he  ought  to 
constitute  bishops.  For  what  is  a  bishop,  but 
a  chief  presbyter,  a  high-priest?  For  in  Al- 
exandria, and  in  all  Egypt,  when  the  bishop 
is  absent,  the  presbyter  consecrates."! 

Eutychius,  a  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (A.  D. 
930),  says,  "Mark,  the  evangelist,  appointed 
twelve  presbyters,  who  should  reside  with  the 
patriarch,  that  when  the  patriarchate  might 
be  vacant,  they  might  choose  one  of  their 
number,  on  whose  head  the  other  eleven  might 
impose  hands,  and  bless  him,  and  constitute 
him  patriarch.  "J 

The  manner  in  which  the  distinction  be- 
tween bishop  and  presbyter  came  into  the 
church  is  pretty   fully  explained   by  Jerome, 

*  Com.  in  1  Tim.  3  :  10.     Eph.  4  :  11. 
t  Quaest.  Vet.  et  Nov.  Test.  Quaest.  101. 
%  Is  Gieseler's  Ecc.  Hist.,  Sect.  32. 


i 


68  THE      CHURCH. 

in  his  Commentary  on  Tit.  1:5.  "A  pres- 
byter," says  he,  "  is  the  same  as  a  bishop; 
and  before  there  were,  by  the  instigation  of 
the  devil,  parties  in  religion,  the  churches 
were  governed  by  the  joint  councils  of  presbij- 
ters.  But  afterwards,  it  was  decreed,  through- 
out the  whole  world,  that  one  chosen  from 
among  the  presbyters  should  be  put  over  the 
rest,  and  that  the  whole  care  of  the  church 
should  be  committed  to  him."  Jerome  pro- 
ceeds to  support  his  opinion  as  to  the  original 
equality  of  presbyters  and  bishops,  by  com- 
menting on  Phil.  1:  1,  and  on  the  interview 
of  Paul  with  the  Ephesian  elders;  and  then 
adds,  "Our  design  in  these  remarks  is  to 
show,  that  among  the  ancients,  presbyter  and 
bishop  were  the  very  same.  But  by  degrees," 
says  he,  "  that  the  plants  of  dissension  might 
be  plucked  up,  the  whole  concern  was  devolv- 
ed upon  an  individual.  As  the  presbyters 
therefore  know,  that  they  are  subjected,  by 
the  custom  of  the  church,  to  him  who  is  set  over 
them,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are 
greater  than  presbyters,  more  by  custom,  than 
by  any  real  appointment  of  Christ."  In  his 
epistles  to  Evangelus  and  Oceanus,  Jerome 
assumes  and  maintains  the  same  positions  as 
in  the  foregoing  passage. 


THE      CHURCH.  69 

Augustine  held  to  the  same  doctrine.  Writ- 
ing to  Jerome,  he  says,  "Although,  accord- 
ing to  the  names  of  honor  which  the  usage  of 
the  church  has  now  acquired,  the  office  of  bish- 
op is  greater  than  that  of  presbyter,  yet  in 
many  things  is  Augustine  inferior  to  Jerome." 
Epis.  82. 

Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  in  like  man- 
ner affirm,  that  "while  the  apostles  lived,  and 
for  some  ages  after,  the  names  of  bishops 
and  presbyters  were  not  distinguished."* 

"It  is  remarkable,"  says  Gieseler,  "how 
long  the  opinion  of  the  original  identity  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  was  retained  in  the 
church."!     Bernald   (A.  D.    1088),  the  most 

*  Horn.  i.     In  Phil.  i. 

t  The  judgment  of  Gieseler  in  regard  to  the  question 
before  us  is  thus  expressed :  "  At  the  head  of  each  church  " 
(in  the  first  century)  "were  the  elders,  all  officially  of 
equal  rank,  though  in  several  instances  a  peculiar  author- 
ity seems  to  have  been  conceded  to  some  one  individual, 
from  personal  considerations." — Sect.  29.  "After  the 
death  of  the  apostles,  and  the  pupils  of  the  apostles,  to 
whom  the  general  direction  of  the  churches  had  always 
been  conceded,  some  one  among  the  presbyters  of  each 
church  was  suffered  gradually  to  take  the  lead  in  its  af- 
fairs. In  the  same  irregular  way,  the  title  bishop  was  ap- 
propriated to  this  first  presbyter." — Sect.  32. 


70  THE      CHURCH. 

zealous  advocate  of  Gregory  VII,  appeals  on 
this  point  to  the  New  Testament,  and  to  Je- 
rome, and  then  proceeds,  "  Since,  therefore, 
presbyters  and  bishops  may  have  been  said 
anciently  to  have  been  the  same,  it  is  not  to  be 
doubted,  that  they  had  the  same  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  and  every  thing  else  which 
is  now  peculiar  to  bishops."  Even  Pope  Ur- 
ban ii,  at  the  council  of  Beneventum  (A.  D. 
1091),  speaking  of  "the  sacred  orders  of  dea- 
cons and  presbyters,"  says,  "Since  these  only 
the  primitive  church  is  said  to  have  had,  con- 
cerning these  alone  we  have  a  command  of 
the  apostle.* 

Nicholas  Tudeschus,  an  archbishop  (A.  D. 
1458),  affirms,  "Formerly,  presbyters  govern- 
ed the  church  in  common,  and  ordained  priests." 

Indeed,  this  was  the  generally  received 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  church,  insisted  on 
by  both  canonists  and  schoolmen,  as  Bishop 
Burnet  testifies,  until   past  the  middle   of  the 

*  Nearly  the  same  words  occur  in  the  Sententia  of  Pe- 
ter Lombard,  Lib.  4,  Dist.  24,  Cap.  8.  Hence  Gratian 
adopts,  without  hesitation,  the  above  cited  passages  from 
Jerome. — Dist.  95,  Cap.  5.  The  same  views  are  also 
maintained  in  the  Glossa  to  the  Decrees  of  Gratian.  The 
same  view  is  expressed  again,  and  without  opposition,  by 
the  papal  court  canonist,  J.  Paul  Lancellot,  A.  D   1563. 


THE      CHURCH.  71 

sixteenth  century,  when  the  opposite  opinion 
was  affirmed  by  the  Council  of  Trent.  It 
was  on  the  ground  of  this  decision  of  the 
Council  of  Trent,  and  with  reference  to  this 
very  subject,  that  Michael  de  Medina  did  not 
hesitate  to  declare  (A.  D.  1570),  that  "the 
ancient  fathers  were  material  heretics ;  al- 
though," says  he,  "  on  account  of  the  rever- 
ence due  to  these  fathers,  their  opinion  was 
not  openly  condemned"  in  the  Council. 

At  the  first  dawning  of  the  Reformation, 
the  doctrine  of  the  original  parity  of  Christ's 
ministers  was  distinctly  asserted.  So  taught 
John  WicklifFe,  in  the  fourteenth  century. 
So  taught  Cranmer,  and  Jewell,  and  Grindall, 
and  Whitgift,  and  most  of  the  early  reform- 
ers and  dignitaries  of  the  English  Episcopal 
church.  Bishop  Jewell  says  expressly,  in  his 
remarks  on  Augustine,  "The  office  of  a  bishop 
is  above  the  office  of  a  priest,  not  by  the  author- 
ity of  Scripture,  but  after  the  names  of  honor 
which,  through  the  custom  of  the  church, 
have  now  obtained." 

In  1543,  was  published,  in  England,  a  very 
remarkable  treatise,  called  "A  necessary 
Erudition  for  a  Christian  Man."  It  was  drawn 
up  by  a  committee  of  bishops  and  divines,  and 


72  THE      CHURCH. 

read  and  approved  by  the  lords  spiritual  and 
temporal,  and  by  the  lower  house  of  parlia- 
ment. It  was  corrected  by  the  hand  of  king 
Henry  VIII,  and  on  this  account  was  some- 
times called  "  The  King's  Book."  This  book 
makes  no  valid  distinction  between  bishops 
and  priests,  and  says  that  "of  these  two  orders 
only,  priests  and  deacons,  Scripture  maketh  ex- 
press mention.''''  About  the  same  time  with  the 
publication  of  "  the  King's  Book,"  there  was 
another  paper  drawn  up  in  England,  and  sign- 
ed by  the  vicegerent  Cromwell,  the  two  arch- 
bishops, eleven  bishops,  and  twenty  divines 
and  canonists,  declaring,  among  other  things, 
"  that  in  the  New  Testament,  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  but  of  deacons  or  ministers,  and 
priests  or  bishops."* 

Bishop  Burnet  says,  "As  for  the  notion  of 
the  distinct  offices  of  bishop  and  presbyter,  / 
confess  it  is  not  so  clear  to  me;  and  therefore, 
since  I  look  upon  the  sacramental  actions  as 
the  highest  of  sacred  performances,  I  cannot 
but  acknowledge  that  those  who  are  empow- 
ered for  them"  (as  presbyters  confessedly 
are)  "  must  be  of  the  highest  office  in  the 
church."^ 

♦Burnet's  Hist,  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  i,  p.  585. 
t  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  p.  336. 


THE      CHURCH.  73 

Archbishop  Usher,  in  his  Letter  to  Dr.  Ber- 
nard, says,  "  I  have  ever  declared  my  opinion 
to  be,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  differ  in  de- 
gree only,  not  in  order;  and  that  in  places 
were  bishops  cannot  be  had,  ordination  by 
presbyters  stands  valid."  In  his  answer  to 
Baxter,  Usher  also  says,  "That  the  king 
(Charles  I)  having  asked  him,  at  the  Isle  of 
Wight,  whether  he  found  in  antiquity  that 
presbyters  alone  ordained  any,  he  replied,  yes; 
and  that  he  could  show  his  majesty  more,  even 
where  presbyters  alone  successively  ordained 
bishops."  He  then  instanced  the  case  referred 
to  by  Jerome,  in  his  epistle  to  Evangelus,  "of 
the  presbyters  of  Alexandria  choosing  and 
making  their  own  bishops,  from  the  days  of 
Mark,  the  evangelist,  till  those  of  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius."  * 

Bishop  Crofts  says,  "  I  hope  my  reader  will 
see  what  weak  proofs  are  brought  for  this  dis- 
tinction and  superiority  of  order,"  between 
bishops  and  presbyters;  "no  scripture,  no 
primitive  general  council,  no  general  consent 
of  primitive  doctors  and  fathers,  no,  not  one 
primitive  father  of  note,  speaking  particularly 
and  home  to  our  purpose."  f 

*Life  of  Baxter,  p.  206.       f  Naked  Truth,  p.  47. 

7 


74  THE      CHURCH. 

Selden,  the  best  read  in  ecclesiastical  an- 
tiquity of  any  man  of  his  time,  and  whom 
Grotius  styles  "the  glory  of  the  English  na- 
tion," turned  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right 
of  bishops  into  a  jest. 

Archbishop  Bancroft  is  said  to  have  been 
the  first  of  the  English  Protestant  clergy,  who 
insisted  on  the  divine  right  of  bishops;  and 
even  he,  it  would  seem,  did  not  hold  this  opin- 
ion constantly;  for  (A.  D.  1610)  when  it  was 
moved  that  the  Scotch  bishops  elect  might  first 
be  ordained  presbyters,  Bancroft  replied  that 
there  was  no  need  of  it,  since  ordination  by 
presbyters  ivas  valid.  * 

Archbishop  Laud,  of  persecuting  memory, 
was  a  strenuous  and  consistent  advocate  of  the 
divine  right  of  bishops.  He  undertook  the 
defence  of  this  position,  while  a  member  of 
the  university,  for  which  he  received,  it  is 
said,  a  college  censure.  He  persisted,  how- 
ever, in  maintaining  the  doctrine,  and  had  the 
happiness  to  see  it  prevail  under  his  adminis- 
tration. It  has  been  the  belief  of  high-church 
Episcopalians,  in  England  and  America,  from 
that  period  to  the  present. 

*In  Neal's  Hist,  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  h\  p.  413. 


THECHURCH.  75 

I  have  examined  now,  to  as  great  length  as 
my  limits  will  permit,  the  claims  of  our  Epis- 
copal brethren  to  their  three  orders  of  minis- 
ters, or  standing  officers,  in  the  church  of 
Christ.  That  there  are  two  orders,  presbyters 
and  deacons,  is  by  common  consent  admitted. 
It  devolves  on  those  who  insist  on  a  third  and 
superior  order  to  vindicate  their  claim.  The 
labor  of  proof  is  on  their  hands.  We  have 
examined  the  arguments  commonly  adduced  K^rfp 
in  proof  of  this  point,  and  find  that  they  amount 
to  nothing.  Indeed,  in  the  course  of  the  ex- 
amination, abundant  evidence  has  been  elicit- 
ed to  show  that  the  alleged  divine  right  of 
bishops  is  unfounded. 

We  come  back,  then,  with  entire  confidence 
upon  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
the  New  Testament,  that  there  are  but  two 
distinct  orders  or  classes  of  officers  in  the 
church  of  Christ;  the  one  having  charge  of \. 
the  spiiitual  concerns  of  the  church,  the  other  ' 
of  its  temporal  concerns;  the  one  commonly 
denominated  bishops  or  presbyters,  the  other 
deacons. 

Some  have  thought  that  preaching  belongs 
to  the  official  work  of  a  deacon.  But  we  have 
no  evidence  of  this  in  the  original  appointment 


76  THE      CHURCH. 

of  deacons,  nor  in  the  charge  given  to  Timo- 
thy as  to  their  qualifications.  The  first  dea- 
cons were  appointed,  not  to  assist  the  apostles 
in  preaching,  but  to  relieve  them  of  a  burthen 
of  secular  cares  and  duties,  that  so  they  might 
give  themselves  more  entirely  to  the  ministry 
of  the  word.    Acts  6:  4. 

Without  doubt,  the  primitive  deacons  did 
every  thing  in  their  power,  by  conversation 
and  exhortation,  to  promote  the  spread  of  the 
gospel.  Thus  Stephen  was  employed,  when 
apprehended  for  trial,  immediately  previous 
to  his  death.  It  is  moreover,  unquestionable, 
that  those  who  used  the  office  of  a  deacon 
well  were,  in  many  instances,  soon  promoted 
to  the  higher  office.  Thus,  Philip  the  deacon 
is  afterwards  spoken  of  as  an  evangelist.  Acts 
21:  8.  The  probability  is  that  he  was  con- 
stituted an  evangelist,  previous  to  his  visit  to 
Samaria,  and  to  his  being  engaged  in  preach- 
ing and  baptizing  there.  * 

Church  officers  should  be  officially  qualified 

*" Preaching,"  says  Bingham,  "in  the  modern  sense 
of  the  word,  i.  e.,  the  delivering  of  public  homilies  or  dis- 
courses, was  regarded  as  the  proper  office  of  the  bishops 
and  presbyters,  and  not  of  the  deacons.'" — Orig.  JScc, 
Book  2,  Chap.  20,  Sect.  2. 


\ 

X 


THE      CHURCH.  77 

or  constituted  by  ordination.  This  is  accord- 
ing to  the  example  of  the  apostles.  The  first  \ 
deacons  were  ordained;  and  I  know  of  no 
good  reason  why  deacons,  in  our  own  time, 
should  not  be  set  apart  to  their  very  respon- 
sible office  after  the  same  manner. 

Ministers  of  the  gospel,  too,  should  be  or- 
dained. Until  they  are  ordained,  they  are  not 
properly  invested  with  the  office  of  a  minister, 
and  are  not  qualified  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  church. 

It  has  been  insisted  that  bishops  alone  pos- 
sess the  power  of  ordination.  But  in  showing 
that  bishop  and  presbyter  denote  the  same 
office,  we  put  an  end  to  this  high  claim. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  insisted  that 
churches  have  the  right  to  ordain  their  minis- 
ters; and,  as  an  abstract  right,  to  be  exercised 
only  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  this  per- 
haps may  be  admitted.  Still,  this  is  not  the 
way  in  which  church  officers  ordinarily  should 
be  constituted.  In  the  New  Testament,  and 
in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  we  find  this 
work  invariably  performed  by  ministers.  In- 
deed, it  is  properly  committed  to  ministers; 
and  should  never  be  undertaken  by  others, 
7* 


78  THE      CHURCH. 

except  in  cases  of  such  extreme  necessity  as 
knows  no  law.  * 


SECTION    IX. 

Church  Discipline. 

The  discipline  of  a  church,  in  the  larger 
sense  of  the  term,  includes  all  those  principles 
and  rules  which  are  adopted,  with  a  view  to 
the  purity,  order,  peace,  and  efficiency  of  its 
members.     In  a  more  restricted  sense,  church 

*  Cases  of  necessity  sometimes  occurred  in  the  prim- 
itive church.  "  Frumentius  and  yEdesius,  two  young 
men,  who  had  no  external  call  or  commission. to  preach 
the  gospel,  being  carried  captive  into  India,  converted  a 
nation,  and  settled  several  churches  among  them.'"  "  The 
Iberians  were  first  converted  by  a  captive  woman,  who 
established  churches,  and  constituted  the  king  and  queen 
preachers  of  the  gospel  to  their  people.'" — Socrat.  Ecc. 
Hist.,  Lib.  i,  Cap.  19,  20.  Theod.,  Lib.  i,  Cap.  23. 
Yet  it  would  be  absurd  to  infer,  from  cases  such  as  these, 
that  to  laymen  and  women  was  entrusted,  in  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances, the  right  of  ordination. 

By  the  early  settlers  of  New  England,  lay  ordinations 
were  encouraged,  and  often  practised.  See  Cambridge 
Platform,  Chap.  9.  But  in  this  respect,  our  fathers  verged, 
obviously,  to  an  extreme  of  independency. 


THE      CHURCH.  79 

discipline  has  respect  to  that  course  of  treat- 
ment which  churches  are  called  upon  to  pursue 
towards  offending  members,  including  instruc- 
tion, warning,  admonition,  reproof,  excommu- 
nication, &c.  It  is  in  this  latter  sense,  that 
the  subject  here  claims  our  consideration. 

The  proper  subjects  of  church  discipline, 
then,  are  offending  members; — those  who  have 
entered  into  covenant  with  the  church,  and 
placed  themselves  under  its  watch  and  care, 
and  who  are  known  to  walk  in  a  disorderly 
manner.  With  such  persons,  the  church  is 
bound  to  have  recourse  to  discipline.  It  is 
bound  to  take  measures  with  them,  for  their 
reformation,  or  exclusion. 

The  power  of  discipline  is  evidently  lodged 
in  the  church.  It  is  the  duty  of  individual 
members  to  use  the  milder  methods  of  warning 
and  reproof;  but  when  these  fail,  it  belongs 
to  the  church,  as  a  body,  publicly  to  admonish 
and  exclude  the  offender. 

This  is  the  natural  right  of  the  churches. 
As  it  belongs  to  them  to  admit  members,  they 
ought  to  have  the  right,  in  case  individuals 
prove  unworthy,  to  exclude  them.  And  this 
right  of  the  churches  is  expressly  recognised 
in   the   New  Testament.     To  the   aggrieved 


80  THE     CHURCH. 

brother,  Christ  says,  "  Tell  it  to  the  church; 
and  if  he  neglect  to  hear  the  church,  let  him 
be  unto  thee  as  an  heathen  man  and  a  pub- 
lican;"— a  form  of  expression  which  clearly 
implies  that  it  belongs  to  the  church  to  hear 
and  judge  of  offences,  and  to  admonish  and  (if 
need  be)  exclude  the  offender.  Paul,  writing 
to  the  Corinthian  church,  says,  "Purge  out 
the  old  leaven;"  and  again,  "  Put  away  from 
among  yourselves  that  wicked  person."  1  Cor. 
5:  7,  13.  He  exhorts  the  Roman  brethren  to 
"mark  those  which  cause  divisions  and  of- 
fences, and  avoid  them;"  and  the  Thessalo- 
nians  to  "ivithdraw  themselves  from  every 
brother  that  walketh  disorderly."  Rom.  16: 
17.  2  Thess.  3:  6.  It  is  evident  from  these 
passages,  and  others  like  them,  that  the  power 
of  discipline  is  vested  in  the  churches,  and  that 
on  them  rests  the  solemn  responsibility  of 
maintaining  it. 

The  ends  to  be  answered  by  church  disci- 
pline are,  first,  the  recovery,  if  it  be  possible, 
of  the  offender.  He  has  broken  the  covenant 
of  the  church,  has  gone  astray,  and  is  in 
danger  of  perishing  in  his  sin.  His  brethren 
are  bound  to  him  by  solemn  ties;  they  feel  for 
him,  and  are  ready  to  do  all  in  their  power 
for  his  recovery. 


TUE      CHURCH.  81 

But  whether  they  can  restore  the  offender 
or  not,  they  are  under  obligations  to  regard 
the  second  great  end  of  discipline,  which  is 
the  honor  of  religion,  and  the  purity  of  the 
church.  By  the  fall  of  a  church  member, 
religion  is  disgraced,  and  the  church  is  de- 
filed; and  there  is  no  way  in  which  the  evil 
can  be  removed,  but  by  the  recovery  of  the 
offender,  or  his  exclusion.  He  must  either 
make  confession  of  his  sins,  and  return  to  his 
duty,  or  he  must  be  separated  from  the  com- 
munion of  the  church.  To  these  great  ends 
of  discipline — the  recovery  of  the  offender,  if  it 
be  possible,  or  his  exclusion  from  the  church — 
all  the  steps  in  a  process  of  discipline  should 
be  directed. 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  how  far  we 
are  to  consider  the  direction  of  Christ,  in  the 
eighteenth  chapter  of  Matthew,  as  a  rule  of 
church  discipline.  In  reply,  I  think  it  may 
be  safely  said,  that  the  spirit  of  this  rule  should 
be  regarded  always,  and  the  letter  of  it,  so  far 
as  circumstances  will  allow.  Except  in  cases 
of  notorious  and  flagrant  crime,  or  where  the 
offender  is  quite  out  of  the  reach  of  his  breth- 
ren, there  should  always  be,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, private  admonition.    Let  some  suitable 


82  THE       CHURCH. 

person  go  to  the  offender,  in  a  private  and 
friendly  manner,  and  tell  him  of  his  fault,  and 
urge  him  to  repentance  and  reformation.  Let 
him,  if  need  be,  repeat  this  labor  of  love.  If 
the  offence  is  known  only  to  one  member  of 
the  church,  and  no  sufficient  proof  of  it  can 
be  adduced,  the  individual  who  knows  of  it 
can  labor  only  in  a  private  way.  He  cannot, 
with  propriety  or  safety,  bring  it  before  the 
church.  If  he  cannot  gain  his  brother  by 
private  admonition,  he  must  leave  him  to  the 
decisions  of  the  judgment  day.  # 

But  if  the  offence  is  not  strictly  private — if 
it  is  susceptible  of  proof,  then,  when  the  in- 
cipient steps  have  failed  of  their  object,  the 
case  must  be  brought  before  the  church.  A 
written  complaint  should  be  lodged  with  the 
pastor,  or   presiding    officer,    with   a   request 

*  Nor  may  he,  on  account  of  the  offence  of  his  brother, 
absent  himself  from  the  communion  of  the  church.  To 
do  this  would  be  to  commit  an  offence  against  the  whole 
church,  and  expose  himself  to  censure,  without  any  suffi- 
cient reason.  T  can  think  of  no  case  of  offence  or  griev- 
ance, on  account  of  which  a  professing  Christian,  so  long 
as  he  believed  it  his  duty  to  remain  connected  with  a 
church,  would  be  justified  in  turning  away  from  its  com- 
munion. 


THE      CHURCH.  83 

that  it  be  laid  before  the  church.  If  the 
church  vote  to  receive  and  act  upon  the  com- 
plaint, as  in  all  ordinary  cases  they  should,  a 
day  is  set  apart  for  trial,  when  the  complain- 
ant is  to  establish  his  charges  by  proof.  If 
the  church  decide  that  the  charges,  or  any 
considerable  portion  of  them,  are  sustained, 
the  offender  is  suspended  from  communion, 
and  an  admonition  is  sent  to  him.  If  he  does 
not  "  hear  the  church  "  in  this,  a  second  ad- 
monition is  sometimes  sent.  See  Tit.  3:  10. 
If  this  is  disregarded,  he  is  then  formally  and 
solemnly  excommunicated. 

If  the  offender  is  dissatisfied  with  this  de- 
cision of  the  church,  he  has  the  right  of  ap- 
peal to  a  mutual  council;  and  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  church,  ordinarily,  to  unite  with  him  in 
calling  such  a  council,  if  he  desires  it.  Should 
the  church  refuse  his  request  for  a  council, 
he  has  a  right  to  call  an  exparte  council.  It 
is  to  be  understood,  however,  that  councils 
have  no  right  to  dictate  to  a  church,  or  to 
impose  their  decisions  upon  it.  They  can 
only  express  an  opinion,  and  give  advice, 
leaving  the  church  at  liberty  to  act  in  view  of 
the  advice  given,  according  to  its  own  sense 
of  propriety  and  duty. 


84  THE      CHURCH. 

The  satisfaction  to  be  required  of  offenders 
is,  evidence  of  repentance ; — confession  of  sin, 
and  reformation  of  life.  While  the  offence  is 
private,  a  confession  may  be  private.  But 
when  the  offence  has  been  brought  before  the 
church,  or  in  any  way  has  become  public,  a 
public  confession  must  be  required.  Nothing 
short  of  this  can  wipe  away  the  dishonor  done 
to  religion,  and  remove  scandal  from  the 
church.  Every  true  penitent  will  desire  that 
his  confession  should  be  as  public  as  his  of- 
fence. Still,  due  care  ought  to  be  taken,  that 
the  feelings  of  penitents  be  not  needlessly 
wounded  in  cases  of  this  nature;  and  that 
feelings  of  unkindness  and  revenge,  which 
may  be  harbored  against  them,  be  not  inten- 
tionally consulted  or  gratified. 

Excommunicated  persons  should  be  consid- 
ered, not  as  released  from  their  covenant  ob- 
ligations, but  as  breakers  of  covenant.  They 
should  be  regarded  with  feelings  of  sorrow 
and  concern,  and  should  be  made  the  subjects 
of  special  prayer.  Where  any  good  is  likely 
to  result  from  such  a  course,  they  are  to  be 
avoided  and  shunned.  They  are  to  be  denied 
the  society  and  countenance  of  Christians, 
that  they  may  be  humbled  and  ashamed.    I  see 


THE      CHURCH.  85 

no  good  reason,  however,  for  the  scrupulous- 
ness which  some  have  manifested,  in  refusing 
to  eat  with  them,  and  in  denying  to  them  the 
customary  civilities  of  life. # 

It  is  incumbent  on  the  church,  and  on  all 
its  members,  to  seek  the  good  of  excommuni- 
cated persons,  and  to  be  ready,  at  all  times, 
to  accept  of  their  penitence,  to  rejoice  in  their 
reformation,  and  to  welcome  them  back  to  the 
bosom  of  the  church. 

It  follows  from  what  has  been  said,  that 
church  discipline  is  throughout  a  work  of  love. 
In  the  spirit  of  love  it  should  be  undertaken 
and  pursued;  and  thus  it  should  be  regarded 
by  all  concerned  in  it.  The  church  is  no 
place  in  which  to  seek  or  to  take  revenge. 
And  those  who  endeavor  faithfully  to  maintain 
the  discipline  of  the  church  should  not  be 
accused  or    suspected  of    seeking    revenge. 

*  "  With  such  an  one,  no,  not  to  eat."  1  Cor.  5:  11. 
To  me  it  is  evident,  that  the  eating  here  spoken  of  is  not 
that  of  a  common  meal,  but  of  the  Lord's  supper;  and  the 
direction  of  the  apostle  is,  "  If  any  man  that  is  called  a 
brother  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater,  or  a 
railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner;  let  such  an  one 
be  put  out  of  the  church,  as  unworthy  to  sit  with  his  breth- 
ren at  the  table  of  the  Lord." 
8 


86 


THE      CHURCH. 


When  I  wander,  it  may  be  insensibly,  from 
the  path  of  duty,  my  Christian  brother  can 
afford  me  no  so  convincing  evidence  of  his 
love,  as  in  taking  me  kindly  by  the  hand,  and 
endeavoring  to  restore  me.  But  this  is  church 
discipline. 


SECTION    X. 

Privileges  of  Church  Members. 

The  privileges  of  church  members  are  nu- 
merous and  precious. 

1.  They  have  the  privilege  of  being  in  vis- 
ible covenant  with  God,  and  of  looking  up  to 
him  as  their  covenant  Father  in  Christ.  They 
sustain  a  covenant  relation  to  God,  and  he 
sustains  the  same  important  relation  to  them. 
They  may  think  and  speak  of  him  as  in  a 
peculiar  sense  their  God,  while  God  regards 
them  (unless  they  are  hypocrites)  as  in  the 
number  of  his  own  peculiar  people.  He  has 
bound  himself  by  a  covenant  obligation  to 
protect  them,  and  provide  for  them.  lie  will 
in  mercy  bless  them;  in  faithfulness  correct 
them;    and  will   overrule  all  things  for  their 


THE      CHURCH.  87 

good.  He  will  continue  them  in  this  world 
till  he  has  rendered  them  meet  for  a  better, 
and  then  will  receive  them  to  those  everlasting 
mansions  which  Jesus  has  gone  to  prepare 
for  his  people. 

2.  Church  members  are  in  visible  covenant, 
not  only  with  God,  but  with  their  brethren  in 
the  Lord.  They  are  united  in  solemn  cove- 
nant with  those,  who  will  watch  over  them, 
and  pray  for  them — who  will  help  them  to 
bear  their  various  burthens,  and  sympathize 
with  them  in  their  sorrows  and  their  joys. 
They  are  in  covenant  with  those,  who  will 
strengthen  them  in  weakness,  and  comfort 
them  in  distress — who  will  warn  them  in  the 
hour  of  danger,  and  reprove  and  endeavor  to 
reclaim  them,  when  they  go  astray. 

3.  Church  members  have  the  privilege  of 
coming  to  the  special  ordinances  of  the  gospel, 
and  of  sealing  their  engagements  to  be  the 
Lord's.  They  have  the  privilege  of  sitting 
with  their  Redeemer  at  his  table,  and  par- 
taking of  the  memorials  of  his  body  and 
blood. 

4.  Church  members  have  many  opportuni- 
ties of  instruction  which  they  could  not  enjoy 
out  of  the   church,  and  are   surrounded  with 


88  THE      CHURCH. 

peculiar  and  additional  motives  to  strengthen 
them  in  the  performance  of  duty.  The  pro- 
fessing Christian  has  many  motives  for  watch- 
fulness, devotedness,  and  a  religious  life — he 
has  many  restraints  upon  his  remaining  cor- 
rupt propensities  and  habits — he  has  many 
and  great  inducements  to  hold  on  his  way, 
and  to  honor  and  adorn  religion,  which,  had 
he  not  made  an  open  profession  of  godliness, 
he  could  not  feel.  These  additional  induce- 
ments and  restraints  are  a  great  help  and 
blessing  to  the  Christian.  They  are  a  secu- 
rity against  the  assaults  of  temptation,  and 
conspire,  with  other  things,  to  make  up  that 
amount  of  moral  influence,  by  which  the 
graces  of  the  Christian  are  to  be  sustained, 
and  he  be  fitted  for  the  heavenly  kingdom. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  appears,  that 
the  privileges  of  membership  in  the  church  of 
Christ  are  very  great — so  great,  that  they 
cannot  be  slighted  and  neglected  by  any 
Christian,  without  manifest  and  inevitable  in- 
jury to  his  soul. 


THE      CHURCH 


SECTION   XI. 


Concluding  Remarks. 


From  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  in 
the  foregoing  sections  relative  to  the  church 
of  Christ,  it  follows  that  this  is  a  highly  hon- 
orable and  important  institution.  In  the  minds 
of  some,  there  exists  a  strong  prejudice 
against  the  church — so  strong,  that  the  word 
itself  can  hardly  be  uttered  without  a  sneer; 
and  to  be  connected  with  the  church  is  reck- 
oned a  disgrace.  But  what  reasonable  grounds 
are  there  for  such  a  prejudice  ?  What  con- 
siderations can  be  urged  to  show,  that  the 
church  is  not  an  honorable  and  important 
institution? 

1.  It  is  a  divine  institution.  It  originated, 
not  in  the  wisdom  or  the  will  of  man,  but  in 
the  appointment  of  God;  and  would  God  es- 
tablish an  institution  that  wa3  not  honorable 
and  important? 

2.  The  church  of  God  is  a  very  ancient  in- 
stitution. It  is  among  the  most  ancient  of 
which  we  have  any  knowledge.  God  had  a 
church,  and  probably  a  visible  church,  before 

8* 


90  THE      CHURCH. 

the  flood.  There  was  a  people  even  then 
who,  in  distinction  from  others,  were  desig- 
nated "the  sons  of  God."  Gen.  6:  2.  The 
great  antiquity  of  the  church  is  a  circum- 
stance, among  others,  which  entitles  it  to 
high  and  grateful  consideration.  This  is  one 
of  the  two  or  three  primeval  institutions,  which 
have  come  down  to  us  from  the  remotest  peri- 
ods of  time. 

3.  The  true  character  of  the  church  may- 
be learned  from  its  nature  and  constitution,  as 
these  have  been  exhibited  in  the  foregoing 
pages. 

Each  particular  church,  we  have  seen,  is  a 
voluntary  association.  None  are  admitted  to 
it,  or  so  much  as  proposed  for  admission,  but 
with  their  own  consent,  and  at  their  particular 
request. 

It  is  an  association  formed  on  the  basis  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  instituted  for  the  most 
important  purposes.  Its  objects  are,  to  main- 
tain the  worship  and  ordinances  of  the  gospel, 
and  promote  the  better  edification  and  greater 
usefulness  of  its  members. 

Like  other  voluntary  associations,  each 
church  has  the  power  of  electing  its  own  offi- 
cers, of  admitting   and    excluding  members, 


THE      CHURCH.  91 

and  of  transacting  freely  and  independently, 
in  open  church  meeting,  its  own  proper  ec- 
clesiastical concerns.  No  other  body  has  a 
right  to  control  it,  and  no  being  but  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  any  claim  of  jurisdiction 
over  it. 

Those  who  are  admitted  to  the  church  must 
be  persons,  not  only  of  outward  morality,  but 
of  visible  and  professed  piety.  And  when 
admitted,  they  publicly  pledge  themselves, 
both  to  God  and  their  brethren,  that  they  will 
scrupulously  avoid  what  they  know  is  wrong, 
and  so  live  before  the  world  as  to  honor  their 
profession  and  glorify  their  Saviour. 

When  any  palpably  violate  this  solemn 
pledge,  they  must  be  brought  to  repentance, 
or  be  excluded  from  the  church.  But  in  this 
necessary  work  of  discipline,  none  are  pro- 
ceeded against  hastily,  or  without  a  fair  op- 
portunity for  defence.  It  is  not  until  the 
offender  has  been  labored  with  long  and  faith- 
fully in  private,  has  had  opportunity  to  meet 
his  accuser  before  the  church,  and  has  resist- 
ed all  the  efforts  of  his  brethren  to  reclaim 
him,  that  he  is  finally  excommunicated. 

Such  are,  in  brief,  the  nature  and  constitu- 
tion of  a  Congregational    church.     And  who 


92  THE      CHURCH. 

can  frame  any  plausible  objection  against  such 
a  body?  Who  can  say,  that  its  object  is  not 
good,  that  its  constitution  is  not  free  and  lib- 
eral, that  its  terms  of  admission  are  not  such 
as  best  comport  with  its  high  and  holy  char- 
acter and  aims,  or  that  its  methods  of  disci- 
pline and  exclusion  are  not  fair,  equitable 
and  efficient? 

4.  In  estimating  the  claims  of  the  church, 
some  regard  must  be  had  to  the  actual  charac- 
ter of  its  members.  Though  the  church  of 
God  on  earth  has  at  no  period  been  free  from 
the  scandal  of  bad  members,  and  perhaps 
never  will  be,  still  it  may  be  safely  affirmed, 
that  the  character  of  its  members,  in  general, 
compared  with  that  of  other  men,  has  been, 
and  is,  an  honor  to  the  church.  In  proof  of 
this  position,  I  might  adduce  the  testimony  of 
history.  I  might  appeal  to  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission into  the  church,  and  to  the  solemn 
profession  which  all  its  members  are  required 
to  make.  But  I  prefer  to  appeal  to  the  im- 
plied concessions  of  those  who  are  not  friendly 
to  the  church.  There  are  those  who  watch 
for  the  halting  of  professing  Christians,  and 
who,  when  they  fall  into  sin,  rejoice  and  tri- 
umph over  them.     But  does  not  this  imply, 


THE      CHURCH.  93 

that  the  palpable  failings  of  professors  of  reli- 
gion are  matters  of  rather  infrequent  occur- 
rence ?  Why  watch  for  their  imperfections, 
and  rejoice  over  them,  if  they  are  events  of 
common  notoriety  ? 

The  enemies  of  religion  are  often  heard  to 
compare  themselves  with  particular  members 
of  the  church.  'We  are  as  good  as  this  or 
that  professor  of  religion;  or  we  have  done  no 
worse  than  he.'  But  is  it  not  evident  from 
such  comparisons,  that  professors  of  religion 
are  regarded  as  in  some  sense  a  standard,  to 
which,  if  others  conform,  they  think  they  do 
well  enough? 

The  irreligious  are  sometimes  placed  in 
solemn  and  distressing  circumstances.  They 
are  laid  on  beds  of  sickness  and  death;  or 
they  are  awakened,  and  anxious  for  their 
souls.  Under  such  circumstances,  to  whom 
do  they  apply  usually  for  instruction  and  con- 
solation? Not  to  their  worldly  and  sinful 
companions,  but  to  the  friends  of  religion,  and 
to  those  in  general  who  are  members  of  the 
church.  And  what  a  refutation  is  this  of  the 
scandal  which  is  sometimes  thrown  upon 
church  members!  What  an  open  attestation 
to  the  general  goodness  of  their  moral  and 
Christian  characters! 


94  THE      CHURCH. 

5.  The  high  claims  of  the  church  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  character,  not  only  of  its 
members,  but  of  its  principal  opposers.  At  the 
head  of  this  opposition  are  "the  gates  of  hell" 
— -the  devil  and  his  angels.  Of  this  we  are 
expressly  informed  by  our  Saviour.  "On 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Among 
those  human  agents,  whose  names  have  come 
down  to  us  from  ancient  time,  as  foremost  in 
the  ranks  of  opposition  to  the  church,  are 
Pharaoh  and  his  host;  Jabin  king  of  Canaan; 
Haman  the  son  of  Hammedatha  the  Agagite; 
Sanballat,  and  Tobiah,  and  Geshem  the  Ara- 
bian; Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  set  up  the 
image  of  Jupiter  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord, 
and  offered  swine's  flesh  upon  his  altar;  Her- 
od, and  Nero,  and  Decius,  and  Domitian,  who 
made  themselves  drunk  with  the  blood  of  the 
saints;  and  Celsus,  and  Porphyry,  and  Julian 
the  apostate,  who  sought  by  sophistry  and 
ridicule  to  undermine  and  subvert  the  gospel. 
In  modern  times,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as 
to  those  who  have  stood  foremost  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  church.  They  are  infidels  and 
scoffers,  the  licentious  and  profane,  men  who 
cannot  endure  the  restraints  of  religion,  and 


THE      CHURCH.  95 

to  whose  ungodly  lives  its  truths  and  precepts 
minister  a  continual  reproof.  It  is  no  dis- 
credit to  the  church  to  be  opposed  and  vilified 
by  such  men.  So  far  from  this,  it  is  an  honor 
to  it,  and  a  high  honor.  Why  should  the 
father  of  lies,  and  those  in  general  who  act 
under  his  influence,  be  all  enlisted  against 
the  church,  if  it  is  not  a  holy  church — an  hon- 
orable and  important  institution  ? 

6.  The  church  of  God  is  an  institution  of 
great  importance,  because  it  is  the  constituted 
medium  and  dispenser  of  good  influences  to  the 
world.  God  has  made  it  the  condition  of  his 
bestowing  spiritual  blessings  upon  the  world, 
that  he  be  inquired  of  by  his  people  to  do  this 
for  them.  And  in  all  that  he  has  done,  or  is 
now  doing,  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  he 
is  pleased  to  work  through  the  instrumentality 
of  his  professing  people.  When  in  ancient 
times,  a  revelation  was  to  be  given,  holy  men 
were  inspired,  and  made  the  organs  of  com- 
municating it.  When  the  gospel  was  to  be 
difFused  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  apos- 
tles were  commissioned  to  go  forth  and  pub- 
lish it.  All  that  is  doing  in  these  latter  days 
for  the  evangelizing  of  the  world,  is  done 
through   the    instrumentality  of  the    church. 


96  THE      CHURCH. 

God  is  stirring  up  his  church  to  prayers  and 
alms,  to  sacrifices  and  efforts,  and  is  making 
it  the  medium  of  conferring  his  choicest  bles- 
sings. To  stand  in  this  most  interesting  re- 
lation between  God  and  the  world,  and  be 
the  appointed  medium  through  which  the 
blessings  of  heaven  are  flowing  down  upon 
mankind,  is  certainly  a  high  honor  to  the 
church.  In  this  view,  the  institution  is  pre- 
sented to  us,  as  one  beyond  all  others  inter- 
esting and  important. 

7.  In  estimating  the  character  of  the  church, 
it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  representa- 
tions of  the  Bible  respecting  it.  But  in  pre- 
senting a  specimen  of  these  cheering  repre- 
sentations, I  hardly  know  where  to  begin 
or  end.  Whole  chapters  might  be  quoted 
from  the  Old  Testament,  in  which  God  exhib- 
its his  love  for  his  church,  and  the  assurances 
of  its  future  triumph  and  peace.  "Glorious 
things  are  spoken  of  thee,  O  city  of  God.  Its 
foundation  is  the  holy  mountains.  The  Lord 
loveth  the  gates  of  Zion,  more  than  all  the 
dwellings  of  Jacob."  Ps.  87:  1-3.  "Behold 
I  have  graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of  my 
hands;  thy  walls  are  continually  before  me." 
"Kings   shall   be   thy    nursing   fathers,   and 


THE      CHURCH.  97 

queens  thy  nursing  mothers;  they  shall  bow 
down  to  thee,  with  their  face  toward  the  earth, 
and  lick  up  the  dust  of  thy  feet."  "I  will  con- 
tend with  them  that  contend  with  thee,  and  I 
will  feed  them  that  oppress  thee  with  their 
own  flesh,  and  they  shall  be  drunken  with 
their  own  blood ;  and  all  flesh  shall  know  that 
I  the  Lord  am  thy  Saviour  and  Redeemer,  the 
mighty  One  of  Jacob."  Is.  xlix.  In  the  Old 
Testament,  God  speaks  of  loving  his  church 
with  an  everlasting  love,  and  declares  that 
those  who  touch  it,  with  the  intent  to  injure 
it,  touch  the  apple  of  his  eye.     Zech.  ii. 

In  the  New  Testament,  Christ  is  said  to  have 
"loved  his  church,  and  given  himself  for  it, 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it,  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word,  that  he  might 
present  it  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not 
having  spot,  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing." 
The  church  is  also  said  to  have  been  pur- 
chased with  Christ's  own  blood.  Eph.  5:  25. 
Acts  20:  28.  Accordingly,  he  is  represented 
as  the  head,  and  the  corner-stone  of  the  church; 
and  the  church  is  repeatedly  spoken  of  as  his 
building,  and  his  body.  An  institution  sus- 
taining such  relations  to  God  and  to  Christ, 
as  those  here  ascribed  to  the  church,  and  of 
9 


98  THE      CHURCH. 

which  such  honorable  mention  is  every  where 
made  in  the  Scriptures,  cannot  but  be  one  of 
a  very  important  character. 

8.  In  estimating  the  character  of  the  church, 
it  may  be  important  to  consider  how  it  is  re- 
garded in  heaven.  That  the  church  of  God 
exists  in  heaven,  and  is  to  exist  there  for  ever, 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  An  important  portion 
of  the  church  has  been  already  transplanted 
from  this  world  to  that,  and  in  the  end  all  are 
to  be  carried  there.  The  church  militant  is 
to  be  swallowed  up  in  the  church  triumphant, 
and  the  entire  company  of  the  redeemed  is  to 
dwell  together  in  the  mansions  above  for  ever. 
And  how  are  they  to  be  situated  there  ?  How 
are  they  to  be  regarded  by  the  other  inhab- 
itants of  heaven?  We  have  the  fullest  infor- 
mation on  this  subject  in  the  Revelation  of 
John.  When  the  heavens  were  opened  to 
this  beloved  disciple,  he  saw  the  representa- 
tives of  the  redeemed  church  familiarly  ming- 
ling with  angelic  spirits,  and  with  them  sur- 
rounding the  throne  of  God  above.  He  heard 
them  uniting  in  a  song  which  no  beings  in 
heaven  could  ever  learn,  except  themselves. 
He  saw  the  city  prepared  for  their  eternal 
residence — the   New   Jerusalem    descending 


THE      CHURCH.  99 

from  God  out  of  heaven — with  its  walls  of 
jasper,  and  its  gates  of  pearl,  and  its  streets 
of  the  purest  gold.  It  needed  no  temple; 
for  the  Lord  God  Almighty  and  the  Lamb 
were  the  temple  of  it.  Neither  had  it  need  of 
the  sun  or  the  moon;  for  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  did  lighten  it,  and  the  Lamb  was  the 
light  thereof.  Rev.  xxi.  Such  is  the  final  resi- 
dence of  the  redeemed  church  of  Christ,  and 
such  the  honor  to  be  put  upon  it  in  heaven 
forever.  And  is  such  an  institution  to  be  re- 
proached and  persecuted  upon  the  earth? 
Are  men,  in  their  madness,  to  stand  aloof 
from  it,  and  affect  to  despise  it?  If  they  will, 
they  must;  but  meanwhile  let  them  remember 
that  it  is  out  of  their  power  ultimately  to  dis- 
credit or  injure  the  church  of  God.  Its  Pro- 
tector is  strong;  its  constitution  is  perfect;  its 
foundation  is  the  holy  mountains.  It  is  des- 
tined to  live — in  peace  and  rest,  in  honor  and 
glory — when  its  oppressors  shall  be  trodden 
together  in  the  dust,  and  their  very  names 
shall  have  perished. 

With  another  general  remark,  this  discus- 
sion will  be  concluded.  If  the  church  of 
Christ  is,  what  it  has  been  represented  to  be 
in  the  foregoing  pages,  then  it  is  the   duty  of 


100  THE      CHURCH. 

all  who  enjoy  the  gospel  to  become  its  mem- 
bers. This  is  evident  from  two  considera- 
tions: 

1.  It  is  the  duty  of  all,  who  are  favored 
with  the  gospel,  to  become  at  once  the  true 
friends  and  followers  of  the  Lord  Jesus'Christ. 

2.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  the  real  followers  of 
Christ  to  become  his  visible  followers:  or 
which  is  the  same,  to  become,  by  a  holy  pro- 
fession, members  of  his  church. 

Can  either  of  these  propositions  be  dis- 
proved? Can  either  of  them  be  reasonably 
called  in  question? 

Many  persons,  I  know,  are  in  the  habit  of 
framing  excuses,  and  of  trusting  to  them,  to 
justify  themselves  in  a  neglect  of  the  church. 
Some  are  too  young  to  make  a  public  profes- 
sion of  religion,  and  some  too  old.  Some 
think  themselves  not  fit  for  the  church,  and 
others  think  the  church  not  fit  for  them.  But 
all  such  excuses  are  worthless  and  sinful. 
Until  persons  can  disprove  the  divine  origin 
of  the  church,  and  set  aside  the  high  and  holy 
claims  of  the  gospel,  it  will  remain  the  indis- 
pensable duty  of  every  person  under  the  gos- 
pel, who  has  come  to  years  of  understanding 
and  reflection,  to  become  a  faithful,  spiritual 
member  of  the  church  of  Christ. 


THE      CHURCH.  101 

There  are  those  who  seem  to  regard  a  pub- 
lic profession  of  religion  in  the  light  of  a/ree 
will  offei^ing,  which  is  required  by  no  antece- 
dent obligations,  and  which  they  are  at  liber- 
ty to  make  or  neglect,  at  pleasure.  But  this 
is  altogether  an  inadequate  and  erroneous  view 
of  the  subject.  A  profession  of  religion  is 
required  by  antecedent  and  indispensable 
obligations.  It  is  the  bounden  duty  of  all  who 
are  favored  with  the  light  of  the  gospel.  And 
little  do  those  think — who  are  often  called  to 
the  performance  of  this  duty,  but  who  lightly 
and  continually  neglect  it — what  a  burthen  of 
guilt  they  are  contracting  and  accumulating 
in  this  way.  It  is  one  of  the  sins  of  which 
professors  of  religion  have  need  to  repent, 
that  they  so  long  slighted  the  claims  of  the 
church,  and  turned  their  backs  on  the  ordi- 
nances of  the  gospel.  And  it  is  one  of  the 
sins  which  those  out  of  the  church  ought 
deeply  to  feel,  and  for  which  they  ought  to 
mourn  and  repent,  that  they  have  always 
neglected  their  duty  in  this  respect — that  they 
have  never  yet  performed  it,  in  a  single 
instance. 

We  urge  no  one  to  make  a  hypocritical  pro- 
fession of  godliness.  But  we  do  sincerely 
9* 


102  THE      CHURCH. 

urge  all,  who  have  the  means  of  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  religion  of  Christ,  to  pos- 
sess this  religion,  and  then  to  profess  it — to 
become  at  once  (as  they  ought)  the  real  friends 
and  followers  of  Christ,  and  then  to  join 
themselves  to  the  number  of  his  visible  friends 
and  people. 


APPENDIX 


NOTE     A. 

That  there  was  a  class  of  females  in  the  primitive 
churches,  usually  denominated  deaconesses,  admits 
not  of  a  doubt.  They  were  not  the  wives  of  the 
deacons,  but  were  generally  selected  from  among 
the  widows,  and  such  widows  as  were  considerably 
advanced  in  life.  See  1  Tim.  5:  9,  10.  The  apos- 
tolic constitutions  say,  "  the  deaconess  must  either 
be  a  chaste  virgin,  or  a  widow  that  hath  been  the 
wife  of  one  man." 

The  deaconesses  were  set  apart  to  their  office  by 
the  imposition  of  hands;  "yet,  this  mode  of  conse- 
cration," says  Bingham,  "  gave  them  no  sacerdotal 
power.  Women  were  expressly  forbidden  to  ex- 
ercise the  sacred  functions  of  the  clergy ;  and  it 
was  made  one  of  the  charges  against  certain  classes 
of  heretics  and  schismatics,  that  they  allowed 
women  to  preach,  and  perform  other  functions  of 


104  APPENDIX. 

the  ministry.  Thus  Epiphanius  says,  "There  is. 
indeed,  an  order  of  deaconesses  in  the  church,  but 
their  business  is  not  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
or  to  perform  any  part  of  the  sacerdotal  office,  but 
only  to  be  a  decent  help  to  the  female  sex  at  the  time  of 
their  baptism,  sickness,  affliction,  or  the  like."  They 
assisted  in  preparing  their  own  sex  for  baptism,  so 
that  the  ceremony  might  be  decently  performed. 
They  were  also  employed  in  visiting  females  who 
were  sick,  or  in  distress,  especially  in  cases  where 
the  deacons  could  not  so  well  go,  on  account  of 
scandal.  In  times  of  persecution,  the  deaconesses 
were  accustomed  to  minister  to  the  confessors  and 
martyrs  in  prison,  because  they  could  do  it  with  less 
suspicion  and  danger  than  men.  They  also  as- 
signed to  the  women  their  places  in  church,  and 
observed  and  regulated  their  behaviour. 

How  long  this  order  continued  in  the  church  is 
not  certainly  known.  It  was  not  laid  aside  all  at 
once.  There  were  decrees  against  it  in  the  western 
church  in  tne  fifth  century,  but  it  was  not  until  the 
tenth  or  eleventh  century  that  all  traces  of  it  be- 
came extinct."  See  Bingham's  Orig.  Ecc,  Book  ii, 
Chap.  22. 


APPENDIX.  105 


NOTE    B.* 

i 


It  has  been  held  by  some,  in  both  ancient  and 
modern  times,  that  the  creed  commonly  called  the 
Apostle's  was  composed  by  them.  This  opinion  is 
however  without  foundation,  inasmuch  as  the  writ- 
ers of  the  first  three  centuries  intimate  no  such 
thing,  and  the  testimony  of  subsequent  writers 
only  goes  to  prove  that  creeds  in  general  were  of 
apostolical  institution,  and  that  this  creed  is  apos- 
tolical, in  regard  to  substance  of  doctrine. 

It  is  certain  that  the  early  Christians  used  creeds, 
in  substance  the  same,  though  not  agreeing  pre- 
cisely in  form.  It  may  be  interesting  to  bring  to- 
gether several  of  the  ancient  creeds,  preserved  in 
different  writers,  illustrating  the  substantial  unity 
of  the  ancient  church,  in  point  of  doctrine. 


CREED    OF    IRENiEUS. 

"  The  church,  though  it  be  dispersed  over  all  the 
world  from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other,  re- 
ceived from  the  apostles  and  their  disciples,  the 
belief  in  one  God  the  Father,  Almighty,  maker  of 
heaven,  and  earth,  and  sea,  and  all  things  in  them : 

*  The  greater  part  of  the  following  Note  is  from  Bingham's  Orig. 
Ecc.,  Book  iii,  Chap.  2. 


106  APPENDIX. 

and  in  one  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  was 
incarnate  for  our  salvation  :  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who  preached  by  the  prophets  the  dispensations  of 
God :  and  the  advent,  and  nativity  of  a  virgin,  and 
passion,  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  bodily  as- 
cension of  the  flesh  of  his  beloved  Son,  Christ  Je- 
sus, our  Lord,  into  heaven ;  and  his  coming  again 
from  heaven  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  to  consum- 
mate all  things,  and  raise  the  flesh  of  all  mankind: 
that  according  to  the  will  of  the  invisible  Father, 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
things  in  the  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  to 
Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  and  God,  and  Saviour,  and 
King  ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  him ; 
and  that  He  shall  exercise  just  judgment  upon  all, 
and  send  spiritual  wickedness,  the  transgressing 
and  apostate  angels,  with  all  ungodly,  unrighteous, 
and  blaspheming  men,  into  everlasting  fire ;  but 
grant  life  to  all  righteous  and  holy  men,  that  keep 
his  commandments  and  persevere  in  his  love,  some 
from  the  beginning,  others  after  repentance,  on 
whom  he  confers  immortality  and  invests  them 
with  eternal  glory." 


CREED    OF    ORIGEN. 

"  The  things  which  are  manifestly  handed  down 
by  apostolical  preaching  are  these:  First,  That 
there  is  one  God,  who  created  and  made  all  things, 


APPENDIX.  107 

and  caused  the  whole  universe  to  exist  out  of  noth- 
ing ;  the  God  of  all  the  just  that  ever  were  from  the 
first  creation  and  foundation  of  all ;  the  God  of 
Adam,  Abel,  Seth,  Enos,  Enoch,  Noe,  Sem,  Abra- 
ham, Isaac,  Jacob,  the  twelve  Patriarchs,  Moses  and 
the  prophets;  and  that  this  God  in  the  last  days,  as 
he  had  promised  before  by  his  prophets,  sent  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  first  to  call  Israel  and  then  the 
Gentiles,  after  the  infidelity  of  his  people  Israel. 
This  just  and  good  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  gave  both  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Gospels,  being  the  God  of  the  Apostles,  and 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament."  The  next  article 
is,  "  that  Jesus  Christ,  who  came  into  the  world, 
was  begotten  of  the  Father  before  every  creature, 
who,  ministering  to  his  Father  in  the  creation  of  all 
things  (for  by  him  all  things  were  made),  in  the  last 
times  made  himself  of  no  reputation  and  became 
man :  he  who  was  God,  was  made  flesh,  and  when 
he  was  man,  he  continued  the  same  God  that  he 
was  before.  He  assumed  a  body  in  all  things  like 
ours,  save  only  that  it  was  born  of  a  virgin  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  And  because  this  Jesus  Christ  was 
born  and  suffered  death  common  to  all,  in  truth, 
and  not  only  in  appearance,  he  was  truly  dead ;  for 
he  rose  again  truly  from  the  dead,  and  after  his 
resurrection  conversed  with  his  disciples,  and  was 
taken  up  into  heaven.  They  also  delivered  unto 
us,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  joined  in  the  same  hon- 
or and  dignity  with  the  Father  and  the  Son." 


108  APPENDIX. 

CREED    OF    TERTUELIAN. 

"  There  is  one  rule  of  faith  only  which  admits  of 
no  change  or  alteration,  that  teaches  us  to  believe 
in  one  God  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  the  world  ;  and 
in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  who  was  born  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  the  third 
day  arose  again  from  the  dead,  and  being  received 
into  heaven,  he  sitteth  now  at  the  right  band  of 
God,  who  shall  come  again  to  judge  both  the  quick 
and  the  dead,  by  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh." 


CREED    OF    GREGORY     THAUMATURGUS. 

"  There  is  one  God,  the  Father  of  the  living 
Word,  the  subsisting  wisdom  and  power,  the  eter- 
nal express  image  of  God,  who  is  a  perfect  beget- 
ter of  a  perfect,  a  Father  of  an  only  begotten  Son. 
And  one  Lord,  one  of  one,  God  of  God,  the  char- 
acter and  image  of  the  Godhead,  the  word  of  pow- 
er, the  wisdom  that  comprehends  the  whole  system 
of  the  world,  the  power  that  made  every  creature. 
The  true  Son  of  the  true  Father,  invisible  of  invis- 
ible, incorruptible  of  incorruptible,  immortal  of 
immortal,  eternal. of  eternal.  And  one  Holy  Ghost, 
who  has  his  existence  from  God,  who  was  mani- 
fested to  men  by  the  Son,  the  perfect  image  of  the 
perfect  Son,  the  living  cause  of  all  living,  the  foun- 
tain of  holiness,  essential  sanctity,  who  is  the  au- 


APPENDIX.  109 

thor  of  holiness  in  others :  in  whom  God  the  Fa- 
ther is  manifested,  who  is  above  all  and  in  all,  and 
God  the  Son,  whose  power  runs  through  all  things. 
A  perfect  Trinity,  whose  glory,  eternity  and  domin- 
ion is  no  way  divided  or  separated  from  each  other. 
In  this  Trinity,  therefore,  there  is  nothing  created 
or  servile,  nothing  adventitious  or  extraneous,  that 
did  not  exist  before,  but  afterward  came  into  it. 
The  Father  was  never  without  the  Son,  nor  the 
Son  without  the  Spirit,  but  the  Trinity  abides  the 
same,  unchangeable  and  invariable  for  ever." 


CREED    OF    LUCIAN    THE    MARTYR. 

"We  believe,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Gospels,  and  Apostles,  in  one  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Creator,  and  Maker,  and  Governor  of  all 
things,  of  whom  are  all  things :  and  in  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  God, 
by  whom  are  all  things,  who  was  begotten  of  the 
Father,  God  of  God,  Whole  of  Whole,  One  of  One, 
Perfect  of  Perfect,  King  of  King,  Lord  of  Lord,  the 
Word,  the  Wisdom,  the  Life,  the  true  Light,  the 
true  Way,  the  Resurrection,  the  Shepherd,  the  Gate, 
the  incommutable  and  unchangeable  image  of  the 
divine  essence,  power  and  glory,  the  first-born  of 
every  creature,  who  was  always  from  the  beginning 
God  the  Word  with  God,  according  to  what  is  said 
in  the  Gospel ;  '  and  the  Word  was  God,'  by  whom 
10 


110  APPENDIX. 

all  things  were  made  and  in  whom  all  things  sub- 
sist, who  in  the  last  days  descended  from  on  high, 
and  was  born  of  a  virgin  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  being  the  Lamb  of  God,  he  was  made 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  being  fore-or- 
dained to  be  the  author  of  our  faith  and  life ;  for  he 
said,  '  I  came  not  from  heaven  to  do  my  own  will 
but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.'  Who  suffered 
and  rose  again  for  us  the  third  day,  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right  band  of  the 
Father;  and  he  shall  come  again  with  glory  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  And  we  believe  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  to  believers  for 
their  consolation,  and  sanctification,  and  consumma- 
tion, according  to  what  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ap- 
pointed his  disciples,  saying,  '  Go,  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Whence  the 
properties  of  the  Father  are  manifest,  denoting  him 
to  be  truly  a  father,  and  the  properties  of  the  Son, 
denoting  him  to  be  truly  a  son,  and  the  properties 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  denoting  him  to  be  truly  the 
Holy  Ghost:  these  names  not  being  simply  put, 
and  to  no  purpose,  but  to  express  the  particular 
subsistence,  or  hypostatic  substance,  as  the  Greeks 
term  it,  of  each  person  named,  so  as  to  denote 
them  to  be  three  in  hypostasis,  and  one  by  consent." 


APPENDIX.  Ill 

CREED    OF    THE    CHURCH   AT    JERUSALEM. 

"I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
Maker  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visi- 
ble and  invisible ;  and  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  all  ages,  the  true  God,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made,  who  was  incarnate  and  made  man,  who 
was  crucified  and  buried,  and  the  third  day  he  rose 
again  from  the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and 
sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  and  shall 
come  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead,  of  whose  king- 
dom there  shall  be  no  end:  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  Comforter,  who  spake  by  the  prophets.  In  one 
baptism  of  repentance,  in  the' remission  of  sins,  in 
one  Catholic  Church,  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh,  and  in  life  everlastine" 


CREED    OF    THE     CHURCH   AT    ALEXANDRIA. 

"We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty, 
and  in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  our  Lord,  God  the 
Word,  begotten  of  Him  before  all  ages ;  by  whom 
all  things  were  made,  that  are  in  heaven  and  in 
earth ;  who  came  down  from  heaven,  and  was  in- 
carnate, and  suffered,  and  rose  again,  and  ascended 
into  heaven,  and  shall  come  again  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  in  the  life  of  the  world 


112  APPENDIX. 

to  come,  and  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  in  one 
Catholic  Church  of  God  extended  from  one  end  of 
the  earth  to  the  other." 


CREED  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  ANTIOCH. 

"  I  believe  in  one  only  true  God,  the  Father  Al- 
mighty, Maker  of  all  creatures  visible  and  invisible  : 
and  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  his  only  begotten 
Son,  the  first  born  of  every  creature,  born  of  Him 
before  all  ages,  and  not  made,  very  God  of  very 
God,  consubstantial  with  the  Father :  by  whom  the 
world  was  framed,  and  all  things  made :  who  for 
our  sakes  came,  and  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  buried, 
and  the  third  day  rose  according  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  shall  come  again  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead." 


CREED  OF  THE  CHURCH  AT  ROME,  CALLED  THE 
APOSTLES'  CREED. 

"I  believe  in  God,  the  Father,  Almighty;  and  in 
Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son,  our  Lord,  who 
was  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  was 
buried,  and  the  third  day  rose  again  from  the  dead, 
ascended  into  heaven,  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of 


APPENDIX. 


113 


the  Father,  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick 
and  the  dead.  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Holy 
Church,  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  flesh.    Amen." 

NOTE    C. 

It  has  been  made  a  question  whether  the  articles 
of  a  church  (its  creed  and  covenant)  should  require 
any  thing  more  than  what  is  absolutely  essential  to 
the  existence  of  piety,  so  that,  by  no  possibility,  any 
truly  pious  person  should  be,  by  the  articles,  exclu- 
ded. In  proof  of  what  has  been  termed  the  liberal 
view  on  this  subject,  it  has  been  urged,  that  the 
church,  with  its  ordinances  and  privileges,  is  an  in- 
stitution of  Christ,  designed  for  the  benefit  of  all 
his  children  ;  and  hence  to  exclude  any  of  his  chil- 
dren, by  articles  of  human  construction,  from  his 
church  and  his  table,  is  to  dishonor  Christ,  and  to 
defeat  (to  some  extent  at  least)  the  design  of  his 
institutions. 

But,  in  opposition  to  this  view,  several  things 
worthy  of  serious  consideration  may  be  urged. 

1.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  determine  what  amount 
of  truth  in  the  understanding  is  absolutely  essential 
to  piety  in  the  heart,*  and  of  course,  on  the  ground 

*  It  may  not  be  difficult  to  ascertain  what  doctrines  are  essential  to 
the  system  of  Christian  truth,  so  that,  if  they  were  left  out  of  it,  the 
system  would  be  essentially  impaired.  But  to  ascertain  what  amount 
of  truth  in  the  understanding  is  absolutely  essential  to  piety  in  the 
heart,  is  a  very  different  question,  and  one  much  more  difficult  of  so- 
lution. ]0* 


114  APPENDIX. 

here  examined,  what  amount  it  would  be  proper 
to  retain  in  our  church  articles,  and  what  to  ex- 
clude from  them.  Many  think  that  true  piety  is 
possible,  in  connexion  with  some  forms  of  Unitari- 
anism  and  Universalism.  Others  extend  their  char- 
ity so  far  as  to  embrace  the  better  sort  of  heathens 
and  infidels.  If  the  articles  of  the  church  must 
be  so  curtailed  that,  by  no  possibility,  any  pious 
person  can  be  excluded,  it  is  doubtful  whether  any 
thing  would  remain  ;  or  if  any  thing,  what  and  how 
much.     But, 

2.  Has  a  church  a  right,  in  framing  its  articles,  to 
omit  any  part  of  what  it  conceives  to  be  essential 
in  the  system  of  Christian  doctrine  or  practice  ? 
The  Bible  is  all  of  it  a  revelation  from  God,  which 
he  has  given  to  his  people  for  their  good  ;  and  it  is 
incumbent  on  them  to  receive  it  all.  And  in  fram- 
ing, as  the  basis  of  church  union,  an  epitome  of 
what  the  Bible  is  supposed  to  teach,  what  right 
have  they  to  omit  certain  doctrines  and  duties, 
which  they  conceive  to  be  of  great  importance, 
merely  out  of  respect  to  the  opinions  of  others  ? 
Are  the  opinions  of  others  to  be  their  guide  in  this 
matter,  or  their  own  convictions?  And  have  they 
a  right,  from  a  regard  to  others,  to  base  a  church 
on  one  half  or  one  quarter  of  what  they  honestly 
believe  to  be  God's  system  of  revealed  truth,  and 
omit  the  rest  ? 

3.  It  may  be  inquired  again,  whether  the  written 
creed  of  a  church   should  not  be  in  accordance 


APPENDIX.  115 

with  its  real  belief;  and  in  case  it  is  not,  whether 
the  former  can,  with  any  propriety,  be  denominated 
the  creed  of  the  church.  Here,  for  example,  is  a  com- 
pany of  Christians  who  believe  that  the  doctrine  of 
election  is  an  essential  part  of  the  system  of  re- 
vealed truth,  and  that  infant  baptism  is  of  divine 
institution ;  but  in  framing  their  articles,  they  omit 
both  these  points,  under  the  impression  that,  if 
retained,  they  may  be  the  means  of  excluding  some 
real  Christians.  1  ask  now  whether  their  articles 
are  the  real  creed  of  the  church,  or  only  a  maimed 
and  imperfect  part  of  it ;  and  whether,  in  propos- 
ing it  as  the  creed  of  the  church,  they  are  not  just- 
ly chargeable  with  dishonesty. 

It  is  of  great  importance,  that  those  who  are  ex- 
pecting to  unite  habitually  in  the  most  solemn  acts 
of  religious  worship  (as  is  the  case  with  members 
of  the  same  church)  should  be  agreed  in  all  the  es- 
sential points  of  Christian  doctrine  and  duty.  Their 
own  peace  and  edification  require  this.  And  the 
honor  and  interests  of  religion  require  the  same. 
To  secure  this  important  object  is  the  design  of 
church  articles;  and  when  these  are  framed  sin- 
cerely and  truly,  according  to  the  convictions  of 
those  who  adopt  them  (as  they  should  be  certainly, 
if  they  are  framed  at  all),  I  conceive  that  no  just 
ground  of  offence  is  given,  even  if  a  pious  person 
shall  find  them  such  that  he  cannot  in  sincerity  ac- 
cede to  them.  Were  there  any  attempt  to  impose 
them  upon  him,  or  in  any  way  to  force  his  con- 


116  APPENDIX. 

science,  he  would  have  reason  to  complain;  but 
when  they  are  merely  proposed  for  his  consideration, 
and  he  is  left  perfectly  free  to  receive  or  reject 
them,  it  is  believed  that  he  has  no  just  cause  of 
complaint.  He  has  his  rights  of  conscience,  and 
the  church  have  theirs,  and  if  he  cannot  consistent- 
ly unite  with  them,  he  is  at  liberty  to  find  or  form 
some  other  church  with  which  he  can  unite.  Cer- 
tainly, were  an  individual  to  demand  more  than 
this  of  a  church — were  he  to  require  them  to  re- 
ject from  their  articles  what  they  conceived  to  be 
essential  in  Christian  doctrine,  they  would  have 
good  reason  for  complaint.  For  this  would  be  re- 
quiring them  to  sacrifice  their  own  consciences,  to 
relieve  his. 

The  church  is,  indeed,  an  institution  of  Christ, 
and  designed  for  the  special  benefit  of  his  people, 
his  children.  But  how  are  his  children  to  partake 
of  its  benefits  ?  On  certain  conditions  ;  or  without 
any  conditions  ?  In  a  prescribed  way ;  or  in  any 
way  that  shall  best  suit  their  inclinations?  Are 
they  to  partake  of  them  in  a  single  organization  ; 
or  in  different  and  circumstantially  varied  organi- 
zations, as  their  own  preferences  and  the  provi- 
dence of  God  shall  direct? 


APPENDIX.  117 


NOTE    ». 


"It  is  certain,"  says  Dr.  Increase  Mather,  "that 
in  the  next  age  to  the  apostles,  a  pastor  was  not 
settled  in  any  church  without  the  concurrence  of 
others.  When  the  church  had  elected  a  pastor, 
they  presented  him  to  the  neighbor  pastors  for  their 
approbation;  nor  could  he  be  legally  confirmed 
without  it.  Eusebius  tells  us,  that  when  Alexan- 
der was  chosen  pastor  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem 
by  the  brethren  of  that  place,  he  had  the  common 
consent  of  the  circumjacent  pastors.  Lib.  vi,  c.  ii. 
And  thus,  as  Cyprian  informs  us,  it  was  practised 
in  all  the  churches  throughout  Africa.  He  speaks 
particularly  concerning  Sabinus,  who  was  elected 
pastor  of  Eremita  in  Spain,  how  that  neighbor  min- 
isters concurred  in  his  ordination,  after  the  frater- 
nity had  elected  him."  Order  of  Churches  vindicat- 
ed, p.  79. 

Bingham  notices  the  following  as  modes  of  com- 
munion among  the  different  churches  in  ancient 
times : 

1.  They  had  communion  in  a  common  faith.  All 
churches  which  departed  from  the  rule  of  faith 
were  held  as  heretical.  To  secure  the  requisite 
unity  in  this  respect,  "  every  bishop  at  his  ordina- 
tion made  a  declaration  of  his  faith  before  the  pro- 
vincial synod,  and  also  sent  circular  letters  to  other 
churches,  to  signify  that  he  was  in  communion 
with  the  catholic  church." 


118  APPENDIX. 

2.  "  The  churches  were  required  to  give  each 
other  mutual  assistance  in  opposing  fundamental 
errors,  and  in  preserving  the  common  faith." 

3.  A  member  of  any  particular  church  was  ex- 
pected, as  opportunity  presented,  to  "join  in  com- 
munion with  all  other  churches,  in  divine  worship 
and  holy  offices.  To  this  end  it  was  requisite  that 
every  church  should  keep  itself  free  from  super- 
stitious and  idolatrous  worship,  and  from  every 
thing  not  conformable  to  the  analogy  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith;  and  on  the  other  hand  that  every  Chris- 
tian, when  he  came  to  a  foreign  church,  should 
readily  comply  with  all  the  usages  and  rules  of  that 
church  in  regard  to  those  indifferent  matters  which 
each  bishop  and  church  were  left  to  regulate  ac- 
cording to  their  views  of  edification  and  general 
expediency.  This  was  a  necessary  rule  of  peace 
and  unity :  for  there  would  naturally  be  a  greater 
or  less  diversity  of  customs  and  forms  in  things 
indifferent." 

4.  There  was  a  "  mutual  consent  of  the  churches, 
to  ratify  all  legal  acts  of  discipline  exercised  by  any 
particular  church.  A  person  in  regular  communion 
with  one  church  had  a  right,  when  travelling,  to 
the  privileges  of  other  churches,  if  he  carried  with 
him  his  commendatory  letters  (litera  formatce),  to 
signify  that  he  was  in  peace  and  communion  with 
his  church.  On  the  other  hand,  if  a  man  was  ex- 
communicated or  suspended  in  his  own  church,  no 
other  church  would  admit  him  to  communion,  till 
he  had  reconciled  himself  to  his  church." 


APPENDIX.  119 

5.  The  churches  were  all  of  them  expected  to 
submit  to  what  was  regarded  as  the  common  law  of 
the  general  church,  viz.,  "  to  that  which,  by  gener- 
al consent,  was  handed  down  from  apostolical  tra- 
dition, and  to  that  which  was  settled  by  the  deter- 
mination of  general  councils."  See  Bingham's  Ecc. 
Orig.,  Book  16,  Chap.  i. 

NOTE    E. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  sides  that,  at  the  time  of 
Paul's  meeting  with  the  Ephesian  elders  at  Miletus 
(Acts  20 :  17 — 38),  Timothy  was  not  bishop  of  Eph- 
esus,  and  never  had  been.  But  it  is  insisted  by 
bishop  Pearson,  and  by  most  modern  Episcopalians, 
that  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  as  late 
as  the  year  65,  long  subsequent  to  this  meeting  with 
the  elders,  and  subsequent  to  the  conclusion  of  the 
history  in  the  Acts.  But  to  this  hypothesis  there 
appear  to  me  to  be  insuperable  objections. 

1.  It  is  entirely  gratuitous.  There  is  no  proof  of 
it  in  any  part  of  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  writ- 
ings of  the  early  Christians. 

2.  Timothy  is  spoken  of  in  Paul's  first  Epistle  to 
him  as  a  youth  (Chap.  4:  12);  which  would  scarcely 
be  true  of  him  as  late  as  the  year  65. 

3.  Timothy  was  left  at  Ephesus,  as  appears  from 
the  directions  in  this  first  Epistle,  to  complete  the 
organization  of  the  church,  by  constituting  bishops 
and  deacons.  (Chap.  3.)  But  it  is  inconceivable 
that  this  church  should  have   remained  without 


120  APPENDIX. 

church  officers  till  the  year  65,  as  many  as  eight  or 
ten  years  after  its  planting.  Indeed,  it  is  certain, 
from  the  meeting  at  Miletus,  that  they  were  not 
without  officers. 

4.  According  to  Lardner  (who,  in  opposition  to 
my  previous  convictions,  has  satisfied  me  of  the 
truth  of  his  hypothesis),  the  second  Epistle  to  Tim- 
othy was  written  as  early  as  the  year  61,  near  the 
commencement  of  Paul's  first  imprisonment  at 
Rome ;  and  certainly  the  first  Epistle  must  have 
been  written  several  years  earlier. 

The  following  seems  to  be  the  true  chronology 
of  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  the  connexion 
in  which  it  stands  in  the  history  of  Paul.  When 
this  apostle  had  labored  more  than  two  years  at 
Ephesus  (Acts  19:  10),  he  formed  the  design  of 
leaving,  to  go  through  Macedonia  and  Achaia 
to  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  to  Rome  (ver.  20). 
With  this  object  in  view,  he  sends  into  Macedonia 
Timothy  and  Erastus,  while  he  "  stays  at  Ephesus 
for  a  season"  (ver.  22).  After  their  departure,  he 
writes  his  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which 
he  speaks  of  himself  as  at  Ephesus  (1  Cor.  16:  8), 
and  of  Timothy  as  in  Greece  (1  Cor.  4:  17.  16 :  10, 
11).  Tarrying  longer  than  he  intended  at  Ephesus, 
Timothy  returns  to  the  apostle  there  (1  Cor.  16:  11). 
On  account  of  the  disturbance  at  Ephesus,  Paul 
leaves  suddenly  for  Macedonia,  and  entreats  Tim- 
othy to  remain  for  a  time  (Acts  20:  1.  1  Tim.  1 :  3). 
From  Macedonia,  Paul  writes  the  first  Epistle  to 
Timothy  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  56.     At  the 


APPENDIX.  121 

time  of  writing  it,  Paul  hopes  to  come  to  Ephesus, 
on  his  way  to  Jerusalem  ( I  Tim.  3 .  13,  14),  but  is 
detained  in  Greece  longer  than  he  expected,  and 
Timothy  comes  to  him.  From  Macedonia  Paul 
writes  his  second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  in 
which  Timothy  unites  with  him  (2  Cor.  1:1,  and 
9:  1 — 5).  They  visit  Corinth,  and  remain  several 
months,  and  then  return  through  Macedonia  to  Tro- 
as,  and  afterwards  to  Miletus,  where  they  meet  the 
Ephesian  elders.  (See  Acts  20.)  It  hence  follows 
that  the  first  Epistle  to  Timothy  was  written  a  very 
considerable  time  previous  to  this  meeting. 

NOTE     F. 

Great  stress  is  laid  by  certain  Episcopal  writers 
on  their  alleged  apostolical  succession.  The  the- 
ory is,  that  the  apostles  ordained  bishops  to  be  suc- 
cessors to  themselves :  who,  in  their  turn,  ordained 
others  to  be  successors  to  themselves ;  and  these 
again  ordained  others ;  and  so  there  has  been  an 
uninterrupted  succession  of  Episcopal  ordinations 
from  the  apostles'  time  to  the  present, — in  the  line 
of  which  succession,  there  has  been  a  valid  minis- 
try and  sacraments,  which  are  represented  as  of 
great  and  saving  efficacy,  but  out  of  which  there  is 
no  valid  ministry  or  sacraments,  if  indeed  there  is 
a  possibility  of  salvation. 

In  reference  to  this  theory,  I  must  be  permitted 
to  offer  a  few  remarks.     And 

1.  I  would  inquire  as  to  the  nature  of  that  mys- 
11 


122  APPENDIX. 

terious,  nameless  something,  which  is  supposed  to 
have  been  imparted  by  the  apostles  to  their  succes- 
sors, and  by  them  to  theirs,  and  so  on  through  a 
period  of  near  two  thousand  years,  which  gives  to 
the  sacraments  so  potent  an  efficacy,  when  admin- 
istered by  those  who  are  in  the  succession,  and 
leaves  them  so  inefficacious  and  valueless,  when 
administered  by  others.  What  is  it?  Is  it  any 
thing  ?  And  is  the  theory  which  involves  so  strange 
a  supposition  any  better  than  a  dream  ? 

2.  If  the  theory  under  consideration  is  founded 
in  truth,  then  the  fact  of  the  alleged  apostolical 
succession  ought  to  be  one  of  the  most  obvious  cer- 
tainty. It  ought  to  be  clear,  in  all  its  parts,  and  to 
be  susceptible  of  the  fullest  and  most  satisfactory 
proof.  Certainly,  if  in  order  to  be  a  minister,  and 
qualified  as  such  to  administer  the  Christian  sacra- 
ments, a  man  must  be  in  the  succession,  he  ought  to 
know  when  he  assumes  the  ministerial  office,  that 
he  is  in  the  succession.  There  should  be  no  room 
for  doubt  on  the  subject.  A  suspicion  here  must 
be  fatal  to  his  peace.  And  not  only  so,  a  people 
should  be  able  to  assure  themselves,  when  they  re- 
ceive a  minister,  that  he  is  in  the  succession.  As 
the  validity  of  his  official  acts  depends  altogether 
upon  this  fact,  there  should  be  no  room  for  doubt  or 
hesitation  in  regard  to  it.  Certainly,  if  the  theory 
under  consideration  is  true,  the  fact  of  an  uninter- 
rupted apostolical  succession  ought  to  be  one  of  the 
clearest  and  most  obvious  certainty.  But  thisjleads 
me  to  remark, 


APPENDIX.  123 

3.  That  this  assumed  fact  is  not  clear.  It  is  not 
susceptible  of  satisfactory  proof.  In  regard  to  any 
bishops  now  living,  or  who  are  likely  to  live,  it  can- 
not be  rendered  so  much  as  probable. 

I  shall  not  take  it  upon  me  to  disprove  the  fact  of 
an|  uninterrupted  apostolical  succession, — this  is 
not  incumbent  on  those  who  reject  the  theory ; — but 
merely  to  state  some  difficulties  in  the  way  of  those 
who  may  attempt  to  establish  this  fact,  with  refer- 
ence particularly  to  the  bishops  of  the  church  of 
England. 

These  bishops  commonly  trace  their  succession, 
through  the  church  of  Rome,  to  the  apostle  Peter. 
But  who  can  prove  that  the  apostle  Peter  was  ever 
bishop  of  Rome  ?  And  who  can  prove  that  the 
first  ministers  of  this  church  were  any  thing  more 
than  presbyters?  Irenaaus  expressly  calls  them 
presbyters,  and  it  is  very  certain  that  they  were 
presbyters. — Again,  who  can  tell  who  these  first 
ministers  were,  and  in  what  order  they  succeeded 
each  other?  The  modern  church  of  Rome  is  con- 
founded here,  and  has  no  means  of  determining  the 
point,  except  on  the  ground  of  her  own  infallible 
decisions.  "Contested  elections  at  Rome,  and  in 
almost  all  considerable  cities,  make  it  very  dubious 
which  were  the  true  bishops ;  and  decrees  of  coun- 
cils rendering  all  those  ordinations  null,  where  any 
simoniacal  contract  was  the  foundation  of  them, 
makes  it  impossible  to  prove,  at  least  on  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Romish  church,  that  there  is  now  upon 


{ 


124  APPENDIX. 

earth  any  one  person  who  is  a  legal  successor  of 
the  apostles." 

But  here  is  not  the  whole  difficulty  of  the  case. 
Is  it  certain  that  the  church  of  Rome,  down  to  the 
time  of  the  Reformation,  sustained  the  character  of 
a  true  church  of  Christ,  and  that  her  bishops  are 
to  be  regarded  as  true  ministers  of  Christ  ?  Or  is 
it  not  rather  certain  that,  ages  previous  to  the  Ref- 
ormation, this  idolatrous  and  persecuting  church 
had  proved  herself  to  "the  whore  of  Babylon" — 
the  great  Antichrist  of  the  New  Testament?  Such 
at  least,  was  the  opinion  of  the  early  reformers  and 
fathers  of  the  English  church,  and  on  this  ground 
they  justified  their  separation  from  Rome. 

In  regard  to  this  question,  the  following  positions 
seem  to  me  safe  and  indubitable :  "  Either  the 
church  of  Rome  is  a  false  and  heretical  church,  or 
she  is  not.  If  she  be,  it  follows  that  she  has  no 
lawful  ministry,  nor  a  power  to  transmit  any.  If 
she  be  not  false  and  heretical,  or  in  other  words,  if 
she  be  a  true  church ;  then  the  churches  which 
separated  from  her  are  schismatical  and  heretical, 
and  of  course  are  incapable  of  having  any  lawful 
ministry.  The  advocates  of  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession through  the  church  of  Rome  are  hemmed 
in  betwixt  the  two  horns  of  this  dilemma,  one  of 
which  must  give  them  a  mortal  wound,  let  them 
turn  themselves  which  way  they  please." 

But  even  here  is  not  the  whole  difficulty  attend- 
ing the  theory  of  an  uninterrupted  succession.  Al- 
lowing that  the  church  of  Rome  is  capable  of  trans- 


APPENDIX.  125 

mitting  the  succession,  with  all  the  mystical  virtues 
supposed  to  be  attached  to  it,  can  the  English  bish- 
ops prove  incontestably  that  they  are  in  the  succes- 
sion of  the  Romish  church  ?  It  has  been  strenu- 
ously insisted,  that;  this  cannot  be  proved.  It  has 
been  said  that,  "  in  the  year  668,  the  successors  of 
Austin  the  monk  being  almost  entirely  extinct,  by 
far  the  greatest  part  of  the  bishops  were  of  Scottish 
ordination  by  Aidan  and  Finnan,  who  came  out  of 
the  Culdee  monastery  of  Columbanus,  and  were  no 
more  than  presbyters." 

On  the  whole,  I  agree  with  Dr.  Doddridge,  who 
says,  "It  is  a  very  precarious  and  uncomfortable 
foundation  for  Christian  hope,  which  is  laid  in  the 
doctrine  of  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops, 
and  which  makes  the  validity  of  the  administration 
of  Christian  ministers  depend  upon  such  a  succes- 
sion;"* and  with  bishop  Hoadley,  who  says,  "I  am 
fully  satisfied  that  until  a  consummate  stupidity  can 
be  happily  established,  and  universally  spread  over 
the  land,  there  is  nothing  that  tends  so  much  to 
destroy  all  due  respect  to  the  clergy,  as  the  demand 
of  more  than  can  be  due  to  them;  and  nothing  has 
so  effectually  thrown  contempt  upon  a  regular  suc- 
cession of  the  ministry,  as  the  calling  no  succession 
regular  but  what  was  uninterrupted  ;  and  the  mak- 
ing the  eternal  salvation  of  Christians  to  depend 
upon  that  uninterrupted  succession,  of  which  the 
most  learned  have  the  least  assurance,  and  tlie  unlearned 
can  have  no  notion,  but  through  ignorance  and  credu- 
lity:' 

*Lect.ll7,  Sec.  6. 


126  APPENDIX 


NOTE     G. 


Without  going  into  a  consideration  of  the  exter- 
nal evidence  for  and  against  the  epistles  of  Ignatius 
(though  the  preponderance  of  this  is  clearly  against 
them),  the  internal  evidence  is  of  itself  sufficient  to 
shake,  if  not  utterly  destroy,  their  credit.  The  style, 
the  spirit,  the  sentiments,  do  not  agree  to  the  al- 
leged circumstances  of  the  writer,  or  to  the  age  in 
which  he  lived.  They  are  like  nothing  which  has 
come  down  to  us  from  the  first  century  of  the 
Christian  era,  or  the  early  part  of  the  second,  but 
much  like  what  might  be  expected  of  a  pious  forger 
of  the  third  or  fourth  century.  The  burden  of  the 
writer's  exhortations  to  the  churches  is,  Obey  your 
bishop,  obey  your  bishop ;  as  though  this  were  of  all 
duties  the  first  and  greatest,  the  most  binding  and 
most  important.  "  Do  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,  as 
Jesus  Christ  did  the  Father ;  and  the  presbytery,  as 
the  apostles ;  and  reverence  the  deacons,  as  the 
command  of  God."    Epis.  to  the  Smymeans,  Sect.  8. 

After  an  impartial  view  of  the  whole  case,  I  ac- 
cord with  the  sentiment  of  Prof.  Norton,  as  ex- 
pressed in  his  very  learned  work  on  "the  Genuine- 
ness of  the  Gospels."  "  I  doubt,"  says  he,  "  wheth- 
er any  book,  in  its  general  tone  of  sentiment  and 
language,  ever  betrayed  itself  as  a  forgery  more 
clearly,  than  do  these  pretended  epistles  of  Igna- 
tius."   Notes,  p.  284. 


I 


